I've looked at Angular a while back and it certainly looks interesting. However I don't think it's wise to introduce another technology within the current company where I'm migrating a rather large CGI-BIN application to a Wicket variant and into several modules. I'm the main JAVA/Wicket guy now, the others are mainly C++ developers with some JAVA knowledge and growing in that knowledge as more and more parts are converted into Wicket counterparts. So they already have to get known with: Hibernate, parts of Spring, Wicket, Maven and HTML, CSS & JS.
Sooo for now.. I'm sticking with Wicket only. And with the zoomed out version and restricting the date range, ergo reducing the amount of components.., that fixes things. The future will give me plenty of time make things even fancier. Perhaps even the use of Angular. On Tuesday 26 March 2013 19:55:30 Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro wrote: > I mean: This same component could be used as "context" for AJAX > interactions. > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 7:42 PM, Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro < > > reier...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Why don't you try rolling your own component that at sever side just > > serves JSON and you build up "rich functionality" at client side. This > > same > > context could be used as "context" for AJAX interactions. Something like > > > > http://www.antiliasoft.com/wicket-angular-demo/ > > > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 5:23 PM, Marco Springer <ma...@glitchbox.nl>wrote: > >> I'm building a Gantt like interface with Wicket (nearly finished). > >> It was a requirement to see multiple years of planned items, in the > >> extreme > >> range even. > >> > >> I've down-tuned it to be around max ~3k (8 years) of components in that > >> listview, through the power of persuasion and as a test. > >> At 3k components, the getId() method is called quite a reasonable amount > >> of > >> times. around 4.5M'ish times through the children_indexOf method. > >> > >> But you're absolutely right, 100k components is bull. > >> > >> Right now I've settled with them that I'd change the view of the Gantt to > >> be > >> less detailed when that amount of data is in there. The UI is quite > >> flexible in > >> that I can change what I render. > >> > >> With 2 years, only 731 columns are rendered, each day is a column. > >> When > 2 years, I change the view to a more zoomed out version. > >> With 8 years, only 97 columns are rendered, each month being a column. > >> > >> Etc... > >> > >> Still with all the components taken in as it is a Gantt chart kinda > >> interface, > >> the browsers that I test in are only getting a bit sluggish when I'm > >> displaying around 2k of components on this Intel Q8200. > >> I'm not displaying any fancy gif's/flash or whatever, only allot of div's > >> and > >> some svg overlays through jsPlumb for dependency display. > >> > >> I mainly found it staggering that the getId() function was called that > >> much. > >> As Martin said, I'm targeting to limit the amount of components that > >> should be > >> rendered now, although sometimes hard with this kind of interface. > >> > >> Cheers. > >> > >> On Tuesday 26 March 2013 08:23:19 Igor Vaynberg wrote: > >> > putting a 100000 components into a page is ill advised even if they > >> > are under different parents. > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org > >> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org > > > > -- > > Regards - Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
