The ajax part would have it's own rolling back. So if you had one normal request and two ajax requests after that and you push the back button, the 'rollback' would be handled by the javascript engine (so without any call backs) much like normal ajax engines do, except that we would probably need to inform the server that we rolled back a version.
Eelco On 2/8/07, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Then that is never possible. Because if you want to make a single page and do everything else in ajax we could say, every request is just the latest. And let only the real back be done in code (so what jan does now) johan On 2/8/07, Matej Knopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Eelco Hillenius wrote: > > Can't we come up with something smart like recording the last non-ajax > > request so that when a request for exactly that url comes in after a > > couple version changing ajax request we now that we have to discard > > version info but just serve the latest? > And what if user really pressed the back button and really returned to > the page with "old" verion number? > > > > Eelco > > > > On 2/8/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> if the problem is knowing the version ( [20] part of the url ) on the > >> server > >> side, can we not keep track of it in a js var, and then modify our > >> wicket.ajax.request javascript to append it to every url for every ajax > >> request? > >> > >> this should work for ajax->ajax but wont work for ajax->regular, but at > >> least its a start > >> > >> -igor > >> > >> > >> On 2/8/07, Matej Knopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > > >> > Igor Vaynberg wrote: > >> > > On 2/8/07, Jan Vermeulen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >but what is a previous page? you said you only have a single > page? > >> > >> > >> > >> Yes, we have one 'physical' Wicket page. But of course, our > >> application > >> > >> contains various 'conceptual' pages (physically panels), i.e. > >> > components > >> > >> that make up the body of that single page, and that we go > >> replacing as > >> > >> the > >> > >> user navigates. With previous, I mean the same Wicket page, but a > >> > >> previous > >> > >> panel. > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > i see > >> > > > >> > >> wicket's ajax requests should never generate a new version, > because > >> > ajax > >> > >> requests do > >> > >> >not change the page url and thus there is no back-button history > - > >> > >> and so > >> > >> a > >> > >> >version is not needed. > >> > >> > >> > >> That's why I started this thread in the first place: we are using > >> ajax > >> > >> requests to replace these 'conceptual pages' (panels), and would > >> have > >> > >> liked > >> > >> a history of that. But for what I read around here, this would be > a > >> > hell > >> > >> of > >> > >> a job. I suppose we should re-render the whole page each time. > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > hmm....yes it would be quiet difficult. the thing is that wicket > >> is not > >> > a > >> > > 100% ajax driven framework so we have some limitations when > >> compared to > >> > the > >> > > likes of backbase and gwt when it comes to things such as this. > >> you see > >> > our > >> > > versioning is designed to keep state in sync with the backbutton > >> of the > >> > > browser which is of course non-existant when it comes to ajax. > >> > > > >> > > im not really sure how gwt emulates the back button, maybe we can > >> look > >> > at > >> > > that and use the same approach. keep in mind that most of us are > not > >> > > javascript gurus :) this would defintely be the area where we > >> could use > >> > the > >> > > help/input/ideas/patches from our users :) it should be doable, but > >> > > difficult :) > >> > I hate to disappoint you, but i really doubt it's doable in wicket. > GWT > >> > and backbase work completely different than wicket. It's possible to > >> > support ajax and backbutton for a framework that is completely > >> > ajax-driven. But Wicket is not the case. > >> > > >> > Biggest problem is updating the url. Consider the situation when you > do > >> > 5 ajax requests on a page (incrementing page version by 5). Then you > >> > reload the page (ctrl+r) and got those 5 versions reverted. That's > >> > because it's not possible to update the url in javascript withou > >> > reloading the page. Changing url hash doesn't help, as it's not > >> > submitted to server. > >> > > >> > I've been thinking about supporting ajax and backbutton in wicket, > but > >> > this thing is a real showstopper. > >> > > >> > -Matej > >> > > > >> > > > >> > >> B.t.w.: thanks for the great support, the quick response from the > >> core > >> > >> developers, the open mind to new ideas, etc. We made the right > >> choice > >> > in > >> > >> going to Wicket ! > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > glad to hear it! > >> > > > >> > > -igor > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > >
