On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Pointbreak
<pointbreak+wicketst...@ml1.net> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012, at 12:05, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Pointbreak
>> <pointbreak+wicketst...@ml1.net> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Mar 22, 2012, at 11:42, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
>> >> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Pointbreak
>> >> <pointbreak+wicketst...@ml1.net> wrote:
>> >> > On Thu, Mar 22, 2012, at 10:56, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
>> >> >> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Pointbreak
>> >> >> <pointbreak+wicketst...@ml1.net> wrote:
>> >> >> > On Thu, Mar 22, 2012, at 09:49, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 8:54 AM, Pointbreak
>> >> >> >> <pointbreak+wicketst...@ml1.net> wrote:
>> >> >> >> > On Thu, Mar 22, 2012, at 08:23, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 7:59 AM, Pointbreak
>> >> >> >> >> <pointbreak+wicketst...@ml1.net> 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...
>
> And the callback for that url directly renders a page? It's probably
> possible to do that in Wicket somehow, but it's it's not how I use it.
huh? thats how almost every non-ajax action component like Link,
Button, etc work..
class TwistieLink extends Link {
private final Component container;
public TwistieLink(String id, Component container) {
super(id); this.container=container;
}
protected void onClick() {
container.setVisible(!container.getVisible());
}
}
-igor
> If you really want to do that, don't use something like NoVersionMount
> for that page... There are a lot of other things you can't do (see the
> previous mails in this long thread) if you use Wicket default mounting
> strategy.
>
> Not having an id/version in the page urls is how I have always built my
> Wicket applications. And it always required some sort of hack to do that
> with Wicket, while I still think a large number of Wicket applications
> would benefit from it (and to be honest, imho many more existing Wicket
> applications would have a better user experience if they were build like
> this). But apparently it's just me and a few others that think like
> this. Thanks for your feedback.
>
>> >> > * 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: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
