Good question.
I'll have to check this and the untouch-feature next weekend.
Many thanks
Sven
>
> On 23.04.2019 at 22:37, <Thomas Heigl> wrote:
>
>
> Or was the original version of `GaePageManagerProvider` with 2 sessions
> stores actually correct with the first one acting as a non-serialized cache?
> Best, Thomas On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 9:57 PM Thomas Heigl wrote: > Hi Sven,
> > > This works, but now we do not have any in-memory caching layer
> anymore and > the page has to be deserialized on *every* ajax request. >
> > The API does not "feel" just right as well. It is very hard to understand
> > what's going on and why we are overriding the `newSessionStore` method, >
> without looking at the whole implementation of `DefaultPageManagerProvider`.
> > > What I'd really like to do is approximate the pre-Wicket 9 behavior
> of my > provider implementation: > > setPageManagerProvider(new
> DefaultPageManagerProvider(this) { >> @Override >> protected IDataStore
> newDataStore() { >> return new
> HttpSessionDataStore(getPageManagerContext(), new >>
> PageNumberEvictionStrategy(10)); >> } >> }); > > > If I understan
d the previous implementation correctly, the store chain in > Wicket 8 with
my configuration would have looked something like this: > > RequestStore ->
*SessionCache* (in PageStoreManager) -> InSessionStore > > After every
request, touched pages are stored in the session cache and do > not have to
be deserialized on the next request to the same page. > > This setup works
very well for us and since we have an application with a > ton of concurrent
users, I want to keep the configuration as close to the > Wicket 8
implementation as possible when upgrading to Wicket 9. > > I guess we can
get close to the Wicket 8 setup by using the following > chain, but I'm not
sure if it will behave the same and have the same memory > requirements: >
> RequestStore -> *InMemoryStore* (size per session = 1) -> InSessionStore
> > Do you have any other ideas on this? > > If we find the right
configuration, you could also add other default > implementations of
`IPageManagerProvider` that make it easier for users > with custom setups to
migrate to the new version without the strange noop > method overrides. >
> Best, > > Thomas > > > > On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 8:39 PM Sven
Meier wrote: > >> Hi Thomas, >> >> you're right, I've changed it to
single InSessionStore. >> >> Have fun >> Sven >> >> Am 23.04.19 um
09:06 schrieb Thomas Heigl: >> > Hi Sven, >> > >> > Thanks a lot
for the quick reply! >> > >> > Are you sure the code in
GaePageManagerProvider is correct? Don't we >> end up >> > with two
instances of InSessionPageStore in this case? Once as >> >
`newSessionStore` and once as `newPersistentStore`? >> > >> > The
resulting chain looks like this: RequestSore -> *InSessionStore* -> >> >
AsynchronousStore -> SerializingStore -> CryptingStore -> >>
*InSessionStore* >> > >> > Best, >> > >> > Thomas >> > >>
> >> > On Mon, Apr 22, 201
9 at 10:57 PM Sven Meier wrote: >> > >> >> Hi Thomas, >> >> >>
>> many thanks for testing so early! >> >> >> >> Set a custom provider
of the page manager, see wicketstuff's >> >> gae-initializer as an example:
>> >> >> >> application.setPageManagerProvider(new >> >>
GaePageManagerProvider(application, maxPages)); >> >> >> >> >> >>
>>
https://github.com/wicketstuff/core/blob/master/gae-initializer-parent/gae-initializer/src/main/java/org/wicketstuff/gae/GaePageManagerProvider.java
>> >> >> >> Have fun >> >> Sven >> >> >> >> >> >> Am
22.04.19 um 18:47 schrieb Thomas Heigl: >> >>> Hi all, >> >>> >> >>>
I just experimentally upgraded my application to 9.0.0-M1. Most things >>
>> are >> >>> straight forward, but I'm struggling with replicating my
current page >> >>> manager configuration using the new API. >> >>> >>
>>> My current configuration for Wicket 8 looks like this: >>
>>> >> >>> setPageManagerProvider(new DefaultPageManagerProvider(this) {
>>> >> >>>> @Override >> >>>> protected IDataStore newDataStore() { >>
>>> >>>> return new HttpSessionDataStore(getPageManagerContext(), new >>
>>> >>>> PageNumberEvictionStrategy(10)); >> >>>> } >> >>>> }); >>
>>> >>> What is the Wicket 9 equivalent of this? >> >>> >> >>> Thanks,
>>> >> >>> >> >>> Thomas >> >>> >> >>
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> For
>>> additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> >>
>
