Re: Roadmap for Wicket 6.0
Hi Gabriel, there are several components which are in need of an overhaul, especially Javascript heavy implementations like modal window and autocomplete. Before we have decided on these, I'm reluctant to shove more code into the framework. >It would be very nice to use a TreeProvider instead of the swing TreeNode. Everyone can start using http://code.google.com/p/wicket-tree/ right away. I'm planning to move the 6.0 implementation to wicket-stuff (with minor changes), hopefully we'll get more feedback about its usefulness then. Best regards Sven Am 22.12.2011 00:14, schrieb Gabriel Landon: I would love to have a refactor of the Treegrid (see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-1600 WICKET-1600 ) implemented with the http://code.google.com/p/wicket-tree/ wicket-tree implementation Sven Meier has done. It would be very nice to use a TreeProvider instead of the swing TreeNode. -- View this message in context: http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/Roadmap-for-Wicket-6-0-tp4221946p4223618.html Sent from the Forum for Wicket Core developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Wicket source code moved to Git
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 8:40 PM, Johan Compagner wrote: > hmm i use EGit but some how i always get "not authorized" if i try to push > something > I am quite sure the username/password is correct, but will recheck it, i > use this url: > > https://jcompag...@git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/wicket.git can you try with the command line git client too ? I verified that I can push with my credentials from console and from Intellij IDEA I also configured my credentials in ~/.netrc as described in the docs for committers > > > > On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 19:26, Jeremy Thomerson > wrote: > >> On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 11:46 PM, Jeremy Thomerson < >> jer...@wickettraining.com> wrote: >> >> > >> > On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 11:20 PM, Clint Checketts > >wrote: >> > >> >> Jeremy, >> >> >> >> Will Git development mimic the current subversion workflow, or will we >> see >> >> we see a more Git-ish way like 'git flow'? See- >> >> http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/ >> > >> > >> > I think at least the core developers are already trying to adopt a more >> > git-like work flow. Look at some of the ajax/JS stuff that happened on >> GH >> > prior to being merged into SVN. I'm definitely in favor of a more >> > "Git-ish" way of doing things. >> > >> > >> >> I realize that likely the answer is 'we don't know yet', so I'd like to >> >> get >> >> the conversation going. >> >> >> > >> > I'd suggest: give us through the weekend for the committers to get git >> > (hehe pun) setup and in use, then let's start a separate discussion. I >> > also say this because of a very large thread on infrastructure-dev right >> > now [1] about the current git hook that requires all committers to have >> an @ >> > apache.org email address, which means for me to pull from your GH repo, >> > for instance, I'd need to rewrite the history some. I think that this >> > requirement will go away (the message I linked to is the first with real >> > weight that says it can go away), but whatever the outcome of that thread >> > is will have a major impact on our git-flow. Involvement with that >> ongoing >> > thread among other conversations has kept from from actually playing with >> > our git repo. I hope the distraction will be gone soon. >> > >> > [1] http://markmail.org/message/jsnmxdzf5qkkrvwg >> >> >> >> FYI... here's an update that the $contributorEmail =~ >> /.*@apache.org/requirement is now gone. See [2] >> >> This should make it easier to integrate a standard git workflow where we >> can merge branches from various users. Of course, the committers still >> need to do our due diligence to ensure code provenance. >> >> [2] http://markmail.org/message/3v47l7747xntqreq >> >> -- >> Jeremy Thomerson >> http://wickettraining.com >> *Need a CMS for Wicket? Use Brix! http://brixcms.org* >> -- Martin Grigorov jWeekend Training, Consulting, Development http://jWeekend.com
Re: Roadmap for Wicket 6.0
I would love to have a refactor of the Treegrid (see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-1600 WICKET-1600 ) implemented with the http://code.google.com/p/wicket-tree/ wicket-tree implementation Sven Meier has done. It would be very nice to use a TreeProvider instead of the swing TreeNode. -- View this message in context: http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/Roadmap-for-Wicket-6-0-tp4221946p4223618.html Sent from the Forum for Wicket Core developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Wicket source code moved to Git
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 1:40 PM, Johan Compagner wrote: > hmm i use EGit but some how i always get "not authorized" if i try to push > something > I am quite sure the username/password is correct, but will recheck it, i > use this url: > > https://jcompag...@git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/wicket.git > URL is correct. Pushing worked for me (I took your URL, changed to my UN, cloned, committed, pushed). Password might be wrong. -- Jeremy Thomerson http://wickettraining.com *Need a CMS for Wicket? Use Brix! http://brixcms.org*
Re: Wicket source code moved to Git
hmm i use EGit but some how i always get "not authorized" if i try to push something I am quite sure the username/password is correct, but will recheck it, i use this url: https://jcompag...@git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/wicket.git On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 19:26, Jeremy Thomerson wrote: > On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 11:46 PM, Jeremy Thomerson < > jer...@wickettraining.com> wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 11:20 PM, Clint Checketts >wrote: > > > >> Jeremy, > >> > >> Will Git development mimic the current subversion workflow, or will we > see > >> we see a more Git-ish way like 'git flow'? See- > >> http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/ > > > > > > I think at least the core developers are already trying to adopt a more > > git-like work flow. Look at some of the ajax/JS stuff that happened on > GH > > prior to being merged into SVN. I'm definitely in favor of a more > > "Git-ish" way of doing things. > > > > > >> I realize that likely the answer is 'we don't know yet', so I'd like to > >> get > >> the conversation going. > >> > > > > I'd suggest: give us through the weekend for the committers to get git > > (hehe pun) setup and in use, then let's start a separate discussion. I > > also say this because of a very large thread on infrastructure-dev right > > now [1] about the current git hook that requires all committers to have > an @ > > apache.org email address, which means for me to pull from your GH repo, > > for instance, I'd need to rewrite the history some. I think that this > > requirement will go away (the message I linked to is the first with real > > weight that says it can go away), but whatever the outcome of that thread > > is will have a major impact on our git-flow. Involvement with that > ongoing > > thread among other conversations has kept from from actually playing with > > our git repo. I hope the distraction will be gone soon. > > > > [1] http://markmail.org/message/jsnmxdzf5qkkrvwg > > > > FYI... here's an update that the $contributorEmail =~ > /.*@apache.org/requirement is now gone. See [2] > > This should make it easier to integrate a standard git workflow where we > can merge branches from various users. Of course, the committers still > need to do our due diligence to ensure code provenance. > > [2] http://markmail.org/message/3v47l7747xntqreq > > -- > Jeremy Thomerson > http://wickettraining.com > *Need a CMS for Wicket? Use Brix! http://brixcms.org* >
Re: Wicket source code moved to Git
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 11:46 PM, Jeremy Thomerson < jer...@wickettraining.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 11:20 PM, Clint Checketts wrote: > >> Jeremy, >> >> Will Git development mimic the current subversion workflow, or will we see >> we see a more Git-ish way like 'git flow'? See- >> http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/ > > > I think at least the core developers are already trying to adopt a more > git-like work flow. Look at some of the ajax/JS stuff that happened on GH > prior to being merged into SVN. I'm definitely in favor of a more > "Git-ish" way of doing things. > > >> I realize that likely the answer is 'we don't know yet', so I'd like to >> get >> the conversation going. >> > > I'd suggest: give us through the weekend for the committers to get git > (hehe pun) setup and in use, then let's start a separate discussion. I > also say this because of a very large thread on infrastructure-dev right > now [1] about the current git hook that requires all committers to have an @ > apache.org email address, which means for me to pull from your GH repo, > for instance, I'd need to rewrite the history some. I think that this > requirement will go away (the message I linked to is the first with real > weight that says it can go away), but whatever the outcome of that thread > is will have a major impact on our git-flow. Involvement with that ongoing > thread among other conversations has kept from from actually playing with > our git repo. I hope the distraction will be gone soon. > > [1] http://markmail.org/message/jsnmxdzf5qkkrvwg FYI... here's an update that the $contributorEmail =~ /.*@apache.org/requirement is now gone. See [2] This should make it easier to integrate a standard git workflow where we can merge branches from various users. Of course, the committers still need to do our due diligence to ensure code provenance. [2] http://markmail.org/message/3v47l7747xntqreq -- Jeremy Thomerson http://wickettraining.com *Need a CMS for Wicket? Use Brix! http://brixcms.org*
Re: Roadmap for Wicket 6.0
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 6:50 AM, Martin Grigorov wrote: > Hi, > > Let discuss (again) what will be included in Wicket 6.0 so we can > schedule what and when will be implemented. > > Here is how I see it: > - use JQuery as backing library - already in master/trunk > - rework Wicket Ajax to use event registration instead of inline > attributes (like onclick, onchange, ...) - already in master, needs to > be polished > - add support for resource grouping/bundling and dependency management > - already in master > - rework IHeaderResponse to work with HeaderItem to make it easier to > render new elements/attributes - already in master > - add support for @javax.inject.Inject - in master, but may need more > work. Need to decide how much will be changed here > - add wicket-cdi - only if JBoss publish CDI jars in Maven central repo cdi and weld jars are in central. seam jars are not there yet. we use seam for cross-container conversation management which is not pat of cdi 1.0 but is coming in 1.1. if seam jars are not there yet before we are ready for M1 i can put the weld-specific code into the distro. that way we can at least support cdi backed by weld which will be the majority of cases anyways. > - component queuing - @ivaynberg: shall we include that or it is not stable ? its not stable yet. as i was implementing component queuing i realized that by itself it is not enough. sure, we can dequeue components, but it doesnt solve the myriad of other problems we have - namely things like borders and enclosures. what i am trying to do is to make sure that if a queued component happens to be inside an enclosure or another resolver-based component it is dequeued into that component instead. resolved components will no longer be "auto", they will be kept in the hierarchy across requests. this will finally solve the enclosure+form components and other headaches introduced by auto components. however, bringing resolvers into the dequeuing process poses two complications: * where as before dequeuing was done by iterating queued components and finding them in markup, because we are now also resolving components we need to iterate the markup instead and either dequeue or resolve * IMarkup and resolvers are not exactly built to work with components that are kept across requests i am going to get Juergen's help over christmas to try and resolve this. i think if we do crack this it is going to make a lot of things much easier and remove a lot of surprises users encounter with resolvers and auto components. also, if this work we can consider making add() work like queue() in wicket 7. a very rough impl is here: https://github.com/ivaynberg/wicket/tree/sandbox/hierarchy-completion and https://github.com/ivaynberg/wicket/blob/sandbox/hierarchy-completion/wicket-core/src/test/java/org/apache/wicket/hierarchy/complete/HierarchyCompletionTest.java i will probably move the branch over into our git repo soon. -igor > - before RC1 rename packages so there are no overlaps in different > jars (OSGi friendly) > > This is my list. > > I suggest to release M1 sooner to get more feedback earlier. > > > -- > Martin Grigorov > jWeekend > Training, Consulting, Development > http://jWeekend.com
Re: Wicket source code moved to Git
also note that for some clones "trunk" is still the default branch. be sure to 'git checkout master' which is where 6.0 stuff lives. -igor On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 8:30 AM, Martin Grigorov wrote: > On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 6:26 PM, Igor Vaynberg > wrote: >> not sure if git://git.apache.org/wicket.git is kept up with commits to >> git-wip-us > > This is what one of the INFRA members said but later we realized that > these mirrors doesn't work at the moment against WIP repo. > Users can use http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/wicket.git > Note, that it is HTTP, without S. > >> >> i think for users >> >> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 1:04 AM, Martin Grigorov >> wrote: >>> The most important info is missing - the checkout url! :-) >>> >>> For devs: >>> https://your_apache_usern...@git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/wicket.git >>> >>> For users: >>> git://git.apache.org/wicket.git >>> or >>> https://github.com/apache/wicket >>> >>> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 6:46 AM, Jeremy Thomerson >>> wrote: On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 11:20 PM, Clint Checketts wrote: > Jeremy, > > Will Git development mimic the current subversion workflow, or will we see > we see a more Git-ish way like 'git flow'? See- > http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/ I think at least the core developers are already trying to adopt a more git-like work flow. Look at some of the ajax/JS stuff that happened on GH prior to being merged into SVN. I'm definitely in favor of a more "Git-ish" way of doing things. > I realize that likely the answer is 'we don't know yet', so I'd like to > get > the conversation going. > I'd suggest: give us through the weekend for the committers to get git (hehe pun) setup and in use, then let's start a separate discussion. I also say this because of a very large thread on infrastructure-dev right now [1] about the current git hook that requires all committers to have an @ apache.org email address, which means for me to pull from your GH repo, for instance, I'd need to rewrite the history some. I think that this requirement will go away (the message I linked to is the first with real weight that says it can go away), but whatever the outcome of that thread is will have a major impact on our git-flow. Involvement with that ongoing thread among other conversations has kept from from actually playing with our git repo. I hope the distraction will be gone soon. [1] http://markmail.org/message/jsnmxdzf5qkkrvwg -- Jeremy Thomerson http://wickettraining.com *Need a CMS for Wicket? Use Brix! http://brixcms.org* >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Martin Grigorov >>> jWeekend >>> Training, Consulting, Development >>> http://jWeekend.com > > > > -- > Martin Grigorov > jWeekend > Training, Consulting, Development > http://jWeekend.com
Re: Wicket source code moved to Git
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 6:26 PM, Igor Vaynberg wrote: > not sure if git://git.apache.org/wicket.git is kept up with commits to > git-wip-us This is what one of the INFRA members said but later we realized that these mirrors doesn't work at the moment against WIP repo. Users can use http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/wicket.git Note, that it is HTTP, without S. > > i think for users > > On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 1:04 AM, Martin Grigorov wrote: >> The most important info is missing - the checkout url! :-) >> >> For devs: >> https://your_apache_usern...@git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/wicket.git >> >> For users: >> git://git.apache.org/wicket.git >> or >> https://github.com/apache/wicket >> >> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 6:46 AM, Jeremy Thomerson >> wrote: >>> On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 11:20 PM, Clint Checketts >>> wrote: >>> Jeremy, Will Git development mimic the current subversion workflow, or will we see we see a more Git-ish way like 'git flow'? See- http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/ >>> >>> >>> I think at least the core developers are already trying to adopt a more >>> git-like work flow. Look at some of the ajax/JS stuff that happened on GH >>> prior to being merged into SVN. I'm definitely in favor of a more >>> "Git-ish" way of doing things. >>> >>> I realize that likely the answer is 'we don't know yet', so I'd like to get the conversation going. >>> >>> I'd suggest: give us through the weekend for the committers to get git >>> (hehe pun) setup and in use, then let's start a separate discussion. I >>> also say this because of a very large thread on infrastructure-dev right >>> now [1] about the current git hook that requires all committers to have an @ >>> apache.org email address, which means for me to pull from your GH repo, for >>> instance, I'd need to rewrite the history some. I think that this >>> requirement will go away (the message I linked to is the first with real >>> weight that says it can go away), but whatever the outcome of that thread >>> is will have a major impact on our git-flow. Involvement with that ongoing >>> thread among other conversations has kept from from actually playing with >>> our git repo. I hope the distraction will be gone soon. >>> >>> [1] http://markmail.org/message/jsnmxdzf5qkkrvwg >>> >>> -- >>> Jeremy Thomerson >>> http://wickettraining.com >>> *Need a CMS for Wicket? Use Brix! http://brixcms.org* >> >> >> >> -- >> Martin Grigorov >> jWeekend >> Training, Consulting, Development >> http://jWeekend.com -- Martin Grigorov jWeekend Training, Consulting, Development http://jWeekend.com
Re: Wicket source code moved to Git
i think for users its fine to git clone https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/wicket.git -igor On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 8:26 AM, Igor Vaynberg wrote: > not sure if git://git.apache.org/wicket.git is kept up with commits to > git-wip-us > > i think for users > > On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 1:04 AM, Martin Grigorov wrote: >> The most important info is missing - the checkout url! :-) >> >> For devs: >> https://your_apache_usern...@git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/wicket.git >> >> For users: >> git://git.apache.org/wicket.git >> or >> https://github.com/apache/wicket >> >> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 6:46 AM, Jeremy Thomerson >> wrote: >>> On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 11:20 PM, Clint Checketts >>> wrote: >>> Jeremy, Will Git development mimic the current subversion workflow, or will we see we see a more Git-ish way like 'git flow'? See- http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/ >>> >>> >>> I think at least the core developers are already trying to adopt a more >>> git-like work flow. Look at some of the ajax/JS stuff that happened on GH >>> prior to being merged into SVN. I'm definitely in favor of a more >>> "Git-ish" way of doing things. >>> >>> I realize that likely the answer is 'we don't know yet', so I'd like to get the conversation going. >>> >>> I'd suggest: give us through the weekend for the committers to get git >>> (hehe pun) setup and in use, then let's start a separate discussion. I >>> also say this because of a very large thread on infrastructure-dev right >>> now [1] about the current git hook that requires all committers to have an @ >>> apache.org email address, which means for me to pull from your GH repo, for >>> instance, I'd need to rewrite the history some. I think that this >>> requirement will go away (the message I linked to is the first with real >>> weight that says it can go away), but whatever the outcome of that thread >>> is will have a major impact on our git-flow. Involvement with that ongoing >>> thread among other conversations has kept from from actually playing with >>> our git repo. I hope the distraction will be gone soon. >>> >>> [1] http://markmail.org/message/jsnmxdzf5qkkrvwg >>> >>> -- >>> Jeremy Thomerson >>> http://wickettraining.com >>> *Need a CMS for Wicket? Use Brix! http://brixcms.org* >> >> >> >> -- >> Martin Grigorov >> jWeekend >> Training, Consulting, Development >> http://jWeekend.com
Re: Wicket source code moved to Git
not sure if git://git.apache.org/wicket.git is kept up with commits to git-wip-us i think for users On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 1:04 AM, Martin Grigorov wrote: > The most important info is missing - the checkout url! :-) > > For devs: > https://your_apache_usern...@git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/wicket.git > > For users: > git://git.apache.org/wicket.git > or > https://github.com/apache/wicket > > On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 6:46 AM, Jeremy Thomerson > wrote: >> On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 11:20 PM, Clint Checketts wrote: >> >>> Jeremy, >>> >>> Will Git development mimic the current subversion workflow, or will we see >>> we see a more Git-ish way like 'git flow'? See- >>> http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/ >> >> >> I think at least the core developers are already trying to adopt a more >> git-like work flow. Look at some of the ajax/JS stuff that happened on GH >> prior to being merged into SVN. I'm definitely in favor of a more >> "Git-ish" way of doing things. >> >> >>> I realize that likely the answer is 'we don't know yet', so I'd like to get >>> the conversation going. >>> >> >> I'd suggest: give us through the weekend for the committers to get git >> (hehe pun) setup and in use, then let's start a separate discussion. I >> also say this because of a very large thread on infrastructure-dev right >> now [1] about the current git hook that requires all committers to have an @ >> apache.org email address, which means for me to pull from your GH repo, for >> instance, I'd need to rewrite the history some. I think that this >> requirement will go away (the message I linked to is the first with real >> weight that says it can go away), but whatever the outcome of that thread >> is will have a major impact on our git-flow. Involvement with that ongoing >> thread among other conversations has kept from from actually playing with >> our git repo. I hope the distraction will be gone soon. >> >> [1] http://markmail.org/message/jsnmxdzf5qkkrvwg >> >> -- >> Jeremy Thomerson >> http://wickettraining.com >> *Need a CMS for Wicket? Use Brix! http://brixcms.org* > > > > -- > Martin Grigorov > jWeekend > Training, Consulting, Development > http://jWeekend.com
Roadmap for Wicket 6.0
Hi, Let discuss (again) what will be included in Wicket 6.0 so we can schedule what and when will be implemented. Here is how I see it: - use JQuery as backing library - already in master/trunk - rework Wicket Ajax to use event registration instead of inline attributes (like onclick, onchange, ...) - already in master, needs to be polished - add support for resource grouping/bundling and dependency management - already in master - rework IHeaderResponse to work with HeaderItem to make it easier to render new elements/attributes - already in master - add support for @javax.inject.Inject - in master, but may need more work. Need to decide how much will be changed here - add wicket-cdi - only if JBoss publish CDI jars in Maven central repo - component queuing - @ivaynberg: shall we include that or it is not stable ? - before RC1 rename packages so there are no overlaps in different jars (OSGi friendly) This is my list. I suggest to release M1 sooner to get more feedback earlier. -- Martin Grigorov jWeekend Training, Consulting, Development http://jWeekend.com
Re: Wicket source code moved to Git
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 10:04 AM, Martin Grigorov wrote: > The most important info is missing - the checkout url! :-) > > For devs: > https://your_apache_usern...@git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/wicket.git If you set up the .netrc like the git @ apache document states, you should not provide your apache username in the URL Martijn
Re: Wicket source code moved to Git
The most important info is missing - the checkout url! :-) For devs: https://your_apache_usern...@git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/wicket.git For users: git://git.apache.org/wicket.git or https://github.com/apache/wicket On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 6:46 AM, Jeremy Thomerson wrote: > On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 11:20 PM, Clint Checketts wrote: > >> Jeremy, >> >> Will Git development mimic the current subversion workflow, or will we see >> we see a more Git-ish way like 'git flow'? See- >> http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/ > > > I think at least the core developers are already trying to adopt a more > git-like work flow. Look at some of the ajax/JS stuff that happened on GH > prior to being merged into SVN. I'm definitely in favor of a more > "Git-ish" way of doing things. > > >> I realize that likely the answer is 'we don't know yet', so I'd like to get >> the conversation going. >> > > I'd suggest: give us through the weekend for the committers to get git > (hehe pun) setup and in use, then let's start a separate discussion. I > also say this because of a very large thread on infrastructure-dev right > now [1] about the current git hook that requires all committers to have an @ > apache.org email address, which means for me to pull from your GH repo, for > instance, I'd need to rewrite the history some. I think that this > requirement will go away (the message I linked to is the first with real > weight that says it can go away), but whatever the outcome of that thread > is will have a major impact on our git-flow. Involvement with that ongoing > thread among other conversations has kept from from actually playing with > our git repo. I hope the distraction will be gone soon. > > [1] http://markmail.org/message/jsnmxdzf5qkkrvwg > > -- > Jeremy Thomerson > http://wickettraining.com > *Need a CMS for Wicket? Use Brix! http://brixcms.org* -- Martin Grigorov jWeekend Training, Consulting, Development http://jWeekend.com
