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 > >
