i simply forgot to remove the creation in the filter.
there's an actual use case in testing. there's no reasonable use case
in request cycle construction of a session that couldn't be done better
in the session factory or constructor.
i did actually think about this.
Johan Compagner wrote:
>
> in the constructor:
>
> protected Session(Application application, Request request, Response
> response)
> {
> // Construct request cycle (which sets thread local)
> getRequestCycleFactory().newRequestCycle(this, request, response);
>
>
> and ofcourse normally in the WicketFilter.doGet()
>
> please don't tell me this change of the Session constructor (suddenly a
> response object as a param)
> and the construction of that request cycle is because of UNIT TESTS????
> because that would be horrible that we change such a basic code just for
> unit testing.
>
> johan
>
>
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/why-are-we-suddenly-creating-2-request-cycles--tf3557832.html#a9958099
Sent from the Wicket - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
