Thibault,

On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 11:23 AM, Thibault Kruse <tibokr...@googlemail.com>
wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 2:13 AM, Garret Wilson <gar...@globalmentor.com>
> wrote:
> > I'm not denying that versioned pages may be a useful concept for some use
> > cases (even though I can't think of any offhand). I'm just saying it's
> not
> > my use case, and I had assumed throughout development on our project
> that I
> > could just turn it off by calling setVersioned(false).
>
> Maybe that is the biggest problem with page versioning in a wicket
> project. As a symptom it is annoying to understand and circumvent, and
> it seems like just a minor configuration thing, so projects advance
> leaving the undesired page version as "something to be fixed later"
> using the full set of features and component relying on page
> versioning. Then much later in the project, they find out that it's
> not easy to get rid of page versioning without paying a hefty price.
>

Do you say that Wicket should store only one page instance per user session
? (As Garret's usecase)
Or that it should not create separate versions for interactions like link
click ? (PageSettings#setVersionPagesByDefault(false))
Or just that the ?pageId in the url is something that should be possible to
be removed if the application developer says it is OK ?


>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
>
>

Reply via email to