On 7/10/2014 3:43 AM, Martin Grigorov wrote:
I
think
org.apache.wicket.Page#Page(org.apache.wicket.request.mapper.parameter.PageParameters,
org.apache.wicket.model.IModel<?>) is private to make it explicit that a
page with PageParameters is bookmarkable and possibly stateless, and a Page
with IModel is not bookmarkable and stateful.
That makes sense. But that issue can be taken care of easily enough
using a precondition:
protected BasePage(final PageParameters parameters, final IModel<?>
model)
{
super(parameters);
checkArgument(parameters == null || model == null, "Must not
provide both parameters and a model.");
There is a very simple workaround for you:
super(parameters);
setDefaultModel(model);
this.myConstant1 = ...
this.myConstant2 = ...
Ah, thanks! I will use that.
Still, it seems a shame to explicitly set the default model (which goes
through a lot of change-reporting logic), when we could have provided it
to the constructor. I note that even the Page constructor uses the sort
of constructor chaining that I want to do:
protected Page()
{
this(null, null);
}
protected Page(final IModel<?> model)
{
this(null, model);
}
protected Page(final PageParameters parameters)
{
this(parameters, null);
}
private Page(final PageParameters parameters, IModel<?> model)
{
But because the ultimate constructor is marked private, even WebPage is
forced to go through the common-initialization drudgery:
protected WebPage(final IModel<?> model)
{
super(model);
commonInit();
}
etc.
I recommend Wicket modify the Page ultimate constructor to be protected,
and add a simple precondition to keep it from being accidentally misused:
protected Page(final PageParameters parameters, final IModel<?> model)
{
super(parameters);
checkArgument(parameters == null || model == null, "Must not
provide both parameters and a model.");
Cheers,
Garret
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
