The wiki says (https://cwiki.apache.org/WICKET/working-with-wicket-models.html):
"Compound models allow containers to share models with their children.
This saves memory, but more importantly, it makes replication of
models much cheaper in a clustered environment."
I think what we're saying in this thread is that PropertyModels
actually have the same benefits as CPM; that is, a CPM doesn't give
you any performance benefits over using a PropertyModel -- there's
less typing with a CPM, but it ends up the same in the end. Does that
sound right?
Andrew
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 12:02 PM, Bas Gooren <b...@iswd.nl> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It sounds like you know what you are doing, but I just want to check why you
> chose "myObject" as a variable name in your example?
> If you are properly using detachable models and do not want to serialize a
> large object graph, "myObject" needs to be a loadable detachable model, and
> not an actual object in your example.
> "myLDM" or "myObjectModel" would be a more logical name.
>
> In my experience it doesn't matter where you create your models, because
> using a compound property model will automatically create propertymodels on
> your nested components anyway. Each component needs its own model anyway, to
> get and set its value.
>
> Met vriendelijke groet,
> Kind regards,
>
> Bas Gooren
>
> Op 25-6-2013 16:20, schreef gmparker2000:
>
>> Considering two alternative ways to set a model:
>>
>> ...
>> final CompoundPropertyModel myModel = new
>> CompoundPropertyModel(myObject);
>>
>> control1.setModel(myModel.bind("field1"));
>> control2.setModel(myModel.bind("field2"));
>> control3.setModel(myModel.bind("field3"));
>> ...
>>
>> and
>> ...
>> control1.setModel(new PropertyModel(myObject, "field1));
>> control2.setModel(new PropertyModel(myObject, "field2));
>> control3.setModel(new PropertyModel(myObject, "field3));
>> ...
>>
>> are there any performance benefits of one over the other? I profiled each
>> and they appear equivalent from the number of objects created point of
>> view.
>> I just want to make sure that option two isn't doing something like
>> serializing "myObject" for each control. It doesn't appear that this is
>> happening but wanted to make sure.
>>
>> We are binding controls to fairly large nested Java Objects. Other than
>> making sure to use LoadableDetachable models where possible are there any
>> other strategies for making sure performance is optimal? For example,
>> would
>> setting the model on the form rather than on each control have any
>> performance benefit?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/Model-performance-question-tp4659771.html
>> Sent from the Users forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
