i dont think we lost it. something in my app here made it work weird,
but i couldnt repro in a quickstart.
-igor
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Johan Compagner <jcompag...@gmail.com> wrote:
> No this is bad, i agree with Igor, the latest page should be refreshed, not
> reset!
>
> By the way, the hybrid in 1.4 what we are using does look at the mount if
> the page doesn't exists any more. And we depend on that, am i reading it
> right that we lost that in 1.5?
> On Mar 22, 2012 11:12 PM, "Pointbreak" <pointbreak+wicketst...@ml1.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012, at 14:34, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
>> > On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Pointbreak
>> > <pointbreak+wicketst...@ml1.net> wrote:
>> > > On Thu, Mar 22, 2012, at 12:30, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
>> > >> 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());
>> > >> }
>> > >> }
>> > >
>> > > I have to add to my previous mail: There is no reason that TwistieLink
>> > > won't work with NoVersionMount. The page is not rendered directly from
>> > > the callback url. I just checked this. Wicket does a redirect to the
>> new
>> > > page.
>> >
>> > its not a new page, its the same page instance.
>>
>> Yes typo.
>>
>> > > The NoVersionMount will make sure there is no pageId in the
>> > > redirected url.
>> >
>> > well, thats bad isnt it? because now if i refresh the page the twistie
>> > would be collapsed again...since wicket will create a new page
>> > instance because it doesnt have the page id in the url.
>>
>> No it's good. It's exactly what this mount strategy is about: always
>> serve an fresh instance of the page on refresh. Users don't randomly
>> press refresh, and if they do, it's because they think their page is
>> outdated, in which case they WANT a new page instance. Using the
>> backbutton will do the same: render a fresh up-to-date version of the
>> page. It's a different interaction model than Wicket's default, but I
>> prefer it over what Wicket does. Again: it doesn't fit your described
>> use case of doing page navigation by swapping out panels. It does fit
>> many other use cases. And did I mention urls and bookmarks already?
>>
>> > >> > 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
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > 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
>> >
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
