On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Pointbreak <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 22, 2012, at 11:42, Igor Vaynberg wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Pointbreak >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > On Thu, Mar 22, 2012, at 10:56, Igor Vaynberg wrote: >> >> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Pointbreak >> >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > On Thu, Mar 22, 2012, at 09:49, Igor Vaynberg wrote: >> >> >> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 8:54 AM, Pointbreak >> >> >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> > On Thu, Mar 22, 2012, at 08:23, Igor Vaynberg wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 7:59 AM, Pointbreak >> >> >> >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> > On Sun, Mar 18, 2012, at 20:00, Igor Vaynberg wrote: >> >> >> >> >> i think there is some confusion here. wicket 1.4 had page ids. >> >> >> >> >> it also >> >> >> >> >> had page versions. in 1.5 we simply merged page id and page >> >> >> >> >> version >> >> >> >> >> into the same variable - page id. this made things much simpler >> >> >> >> >> and >> >> >> >> >> also allowed some usecases that were not possible when the two >> >> >> >> >> were >> >> >> >> >> separate. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> you dont have to go very far to come up with an example where >> >> >> >> >> page id is >> >> >> >> >> useful. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 1. suppose you have a page with panel A that has a link >> >> >> >> >> 2. user hits a link on the page that swaps panel A for panel B >> >> >> >> >> 3. user presses the back button >> >> >> >> >> 4. user clicks the link on panel A >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> now if you turn off page id and therefore page versioning it >> >> >> >> >> goes like >> >> >> >> >> this >> >> >> >> >> 1. wicket creates page and assigns it id 1 >> >> >> >> >> 2. page id 1 now has panel B instead of panel A >> >> >> >> >> 3. page with id 1 is rerendered >> >> >> >> >> 4. wicket loads page with id 1. user gets an error because it >> >> >> >> >> cannot >> >> >> >> >> find the link component the user clicked since the page has >> >> >> >> >> panel B >> >> >> >> >> instead of panel A >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > This is imho not what happens with NoVersionMount. What happens >> >> >> >> > is: >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > 1. wicket creates page and assigns it id 1 >> >> >> >> > 2. page id 1 now has panel B instead of panel A >> >> >> >> > 3. wicket creates new page and assigns it id 2; depending on how >> >> >> >> > the >> >> >> >> > page keeps state either a page with panel A and link, or a page >> >> >> >> > with >> >> >> >> > Panel B is created. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > Hence, there is nothing broken in this scenario. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> we were talking about something else here. the NoVersionMount has >> >> >> >> the >> >> >> >> problem of losing ajax state when the user refreshes the page. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > I believe the OP's question was for use-cases were Wickets default >> >> >> > behaviour would be preferred over using a strategy like >> >> >> > NoVersionMount. >> >> >> > But if I understood that incorrectly, it's now my question ;-). >> >> >> > Imho >> >> >> > the natural behaviour a user expects for a page-refresh is a fresh >> >> >> > up-to-date version of the page. This is exactly what NoVersionMount >> >> >> > does >> >> >> > as it forces a newly constructed page for a refresh. For OP's (Chris >> >> >> > Colman's) shopping card example this seems perfectly reasonable >> >> >> > behaviour. >> >> >> >> >> >> it is undesirable in applications that perform navigation using ajax >> >> >> panel swapping. in this case a page-refresh will essentially take you >> >> >> back to the homepage. >> >> > >> >> > Fair enough >> >> > >> >> >> > I have never had to build a website were it was a problem when the >> >> >> > ajax >> >> >> > state was lost on page refresh. >> >> >> >> >> >> but you also have not built every wicket application... >> >> > >> >> > Obviously... to be honest, for your use case (one page ajax application >> >> > that performs navigation by swapping page components) I have always >> >> > chosen other frameworks, that are (imho) better suited for these >> >> > usecases. >> >> > >> >> >> > When wicket shows older versions of a >> >> >> > page (e.g. due to back button, bookmarking older versions, etc.), you >> >> >> > have to be really careful with how a page version and a model >> >> >> > interact >> >> >> > to not run into trouble. You also loose bookmarkability of such pages >> >> >> > (in the web-browser sense, not in the wicket-sense). >> >> >> >> >> >> you also lose it if the user bookmarks the page after they click >> >> >> something on a bookmarkable page... so stripping the version off >> >> >> initial entry is not fixing the problem entirely. >> >> > >> >> > I don't see this. They always get an up-to-date version of the page they >> >> > bookmarked, as it is always freshly constructed. >> >> >> >> suppose i go to /foo >> >> i think click some twistie link that expands some info section, and in >> >> process redirects me to /foo?1 >> >> at this point i think this page is useful and i bookmark it >> >> so i still have the version number in my bookmark. >> >> >> >> in fact, the only way i dont have a version number is if i bookmark >> >> without clicking anything on the page. i dont know how often that >> >> happens compared to bookmarking after at least one click on something >> >> in the page >> > >> > No that is not what happens with NoVersionMount: >> > >> > * If you click a link while on /foo that expands an info section why >> > would it want to redirect you to /foo?1 ? It should just expand that >> > info section, and you can remain on /foo. Doing a redirect defeats the >> > purpose of being ajax twistie link. > > Not being an ajax twistie link still doesn't add the ?1 to the url. > NoVersionMount will only add the id to callback urls.
the twistie uses a Link which generates a callback url... -igor > >> > * Additionally, if you would explicitly program a redirect to the >> > originating page in that callback, there will still be no ?x in the url. >> > NoVersionMount drops it. The redirect will however construct a new >> > version of the page. Depending on the page implementation, this may mean >> > that the info section is not expanded on the final /foo page. >> > NoVersionMount also makes sure that url's for callbacks do NOT drop the >> > id in the url, so that the page is still stateful for ajax. >> > >> >> > Ok, I can see the usecase for this page-id/version functionality. >> >> > However, I still think it would be useful if Wicket also catered for the >> >> > other usecase, where page navigation is handled by just having multiple >> >> > pages. Is there a serious flaw in the NoVersionMount strategy for these >> >> > usecases, and if not, wouldn't something like that be a valuable >> >> > contribution to Wicket? (In which case I think it should not be turned >> >> > on by a MountMapper implementation, but by a page property). >> >> > >> >> > I have always considered Wicket's main strength the flexibility to have >> >> > ajax-like functionality in a page based component framework. It's a >> >> > really nice thing to be able to have support for good looking and >> >> > bookmarkable url's in such applications. And it also makes page state >> >> > management easier for these pages (i.e. when a LDM and the component >> >> > hierarchy on a page have a relation). >> > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> > >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
