Please create a ticket! With a patch with the custom exception will make its processing even faster! Thank you!
Martin Grigorov Wicket Training and Consulting https://twitter.com/mtgrigorov On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Daniel Stoch <daniel.st...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think the simplest solution for now (until we invent a better one) > is to define a dedicated exception class for such case (similar to > ListenerInvocationNotAllowedException which is raised if user tries > click on disabled links). Then we can catch such exception and handle > it eg. as described by Martin in my previous post ("How to handle > click on disabled links - ListenerInvocationNotAllowedException?"). > > -- > Daniel > > On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 5:38 PM, Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro > <reier...@gmail.com> wrote: > > maybe what is needed is a "fail silently ajax request" ;-) > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 5:36 PM, Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro < > > reier...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> > >> On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Daniel Stoch <daniel.st...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Sorry, but for me all these solutions are hacks :). > >>> > >> > >> Why? As far as they are under control... Isn't software development > >> production controlled "hacks"? Wicket itself is a "hack" and so do are > >> other WEB frameworks like GWT. As far as you remain in control I do not > see > >> the problem. All frameworks have limitations... Why not get the best of > >> them and circumvent those. > >> > >> > >>> I want to use standard components (eg. AjaxLink) to do simple things. > >>> I don't want to think everywhere how to handle such scenarios. It > >>> should be handled properly on a framework level. I think there is > >>> always possibility that component state on server and DOM tree on > >>> client browser are inconsistent (and not necessary because of push > >>> requests). Maybe it should be a dedicated exception on such situation > >>> ("Component 'xxx' has been removed from page.") at least or maybe we > >>> can invent a better solution in core? > >>> > >> > >> I do agree that would be optimal. > >> > >> > >> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Daniel > >>> > >>> On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 4:11 PM, Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro > >>> <reier...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > Maybe you could even just push JSON to client side and generate items > >>> > content at client side which is going to be way faster > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 4:06 PM, Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro < > >>> > reier...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > > >>> >> Why don't you try routing all the click to a part of you application > >>> that > >>> >> is always available? E.g. > >>> >> > >>> >> 1- You have a list of items that are pushed... They are in a certain > >>> >> container that is "always" there... At client and server side > >>> >> 2- The items are pushed but instead of normal AJAX link you use > link to > >>> >> the parent never changing container passing ID of item. This way > click > >>> will > >>> >> never fail and it is still sort of object oriented... > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 3:59 PM, Daniel Stoch < > daniel.st...@gmail.com> > >>> >> wrote: > >>> >> > >>> >>> On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Martin Grigorov < > mgrigo...@apache.org > >>> > > >>> >>> wrote: > >>> >>> > Hi, > >>> >>> > > >>> >>> > You can use Atmopshere to hide/disable the client side too, not > >>> just the > >>> >>> > server side. > >>> >>> > >>> >>> Of course, I already do that. > >>> >>> But user can click the link after state was changed on the server > side > >>> >>> but before these changes are pushed to client browser. > >>> >>> > >>> >>> -- > >>> >>> Daniel > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > > >>> >>> > Martin Grigorov > >>> >>> > Wicket Training and Consulting > >>> >>> > https://twitter.com/mtgrigorov > >>> >>> > > >>> >>> > > >>> >>> > On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 1:46 PM, Daniel Stoch < > >>> daniel.st...@gmail.com> > >>> >>> wrote: > >>> >>> > > >>> >>> >> On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 12:33 PM, Sven Meier <s...@meiers.net> > >>> wrote: > >>> >>> >> >> So page was rendered in a browser, > >>> >>> >> >> on the server component tree was changed > >>> >>> >> > > >>> >>> >> > > >>> >>> >> > What triggers the change to the component tree? On which > thread? > >>> Are > >>> >>> you > >>> >>> >> > using websockets? > >>> >>> >> > > >>> >>> >> > Sven > >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> >> In general this thread is not initialized by user action but by > >>> >>> >> application. So yes, it can be push from a server (eg. using > >>> >>> >> Atmosphere - this is my case) or by ajax self updating behavior. > >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> >> -- > >>> >>> >> DS > >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> >> > > >>> >>> >> > > >>> >>> >> > > >>> >>> >> > On 07/04/2014 12:13 PM, Daniel Stoch wrote: > >>> >>> >> >> > >>> >>> >> >> Hi all, > >>> >>> >> >> > >>> >>> >> >> I think such question occurs from time to time on this list, > >>> but I > >>> >>> >> >> have never found a good answer how to solve such problem in > >>> general. > >>> >>> >> >> The problem is similar to my last question: > >>> >>> >> >> > >>> >>> >> >> > >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> > >>> > http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/How-to-handle-click-on-disabled-links-ListenerInvocationNotAllowedException-td4666287.html > >>> >>> >> >> but now there is a situation when link was removed from page > >>> (not > >>> >>> >> >> disabled). > >>> >>> >> >> > >>> >>> >> >> So page was rendered in a browser, on the server component > tree > >>> was > >>> >>> >> >> changed, but user clicks a link in a browser before this > changes > >>> >>> will > >>> >>> >> >> be pushed to it. It leads to an exception: > >>> >>> >> >> > >>> >>> >> >> org.apache.wicket.WicketRuntimeException: Component 'xxx' has > >>> been > >>> >>> >> >> removed from page. > >>> >>> >> >> at > >>> >>> >> >> > >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> > >>> > org.apache.wicket.core.request.handler.ListenerInterfaceRequestHandler.respond(ListenerInterfaceRequestHandler.java:178) > >>> >>> >> >> at > >>> >>> >> >> > >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> > >>> > org.apache.wicket.request.cycle.RequestCycle$HandlerExecutor.respond(RequestCycle.java:862) > >>> >>> >> >> at > >>> >>> >> >> > >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> > >>> > org.apache.wicket.request.RequestHandlerStack.execute(RequestHandlerStack.java:64) > >>> >>> >> >> at > >>> >>> >> >> > >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> > >>> > org.apache.wicket.request.cycle.RequestCycle.execute(RequestCycle.java:261) > >>> >>> >> >> at > >>> >>> >> >> > >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> > >>> > org.apache.wicket.request.cycle.RequestCycle.processRequest(RequestCycle.java:218) > >>> >>> >> >> at > >>> >>> >> >> > >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> > >>> > org.apache.wicket.request.cycle.RequestCycle.processRequestAndDetach(RequestCycle.java:289) > >>> >>> >> >> at > >>> >>> >> >> > >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> > >>> > org.apache.wicket.protocol.http.WicketFilter.processRequestCycle(WicketFilter.java:259) > >>> >>> >> >> at > >>> >>> >> >> > >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> > >>> > org.apache.wicket.protocol.http.WicketFilter.processRequest(WicketFilter.java:201) > >>> >>> >> >> at > >>> >>> >> >> > >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> > >>> > org.apache.wicket.protocol.http.WicketServlet.doGet(WicketServlet.java:137) > >>> >>> >> >> at > javax.servlet.http.HttpServlet.service(HttpServlet.java:735) > >>> >>> >> >> at > javax.servlet.http.HttpServlet.service(HttpServlet.java:848) > >>> >>> >> >> > >>> >>> >> >> How it should be properly handled in application? > Unfortunately > >>> this > >>> >>> >> >> is not a dedicated exception to catch somewhere, but a common > >>> >>> >> >> WicketRuntimeException. > >>> >>> >> >> > >>> >>> >> >> -- > >>> >>> >> >> Best regards, > >>> >>> >> >> Daniel > >>> >>> >> >> > >>> >>> >> >> > >>> >>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> >>> >> >> 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 > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> -- > >>> >> Regards - Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro > >>> >> > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > -- > >>> > Regards - Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro > >>> > >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Regards - Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Regards - Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org > >
