Re: Exception redirecting to source page
Yes, it works, at least when the exception is thrown in Button.onSubmit. I
haven't tried with Link.onClick.
igor.vaynberg wrote:
have you tried it and does it work?
-igor
On Feb 15, 2008 1:17 PM, Cristiano Kliemann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi!
I have some business runtime exceptions that I want to be automatically
catched and its message rendered in the same page that threw it instead
of
redirecting to an error page.
Is there a safe way to do that?
These 'business exceptions' are usually thrown in some specific methods
like
onSubmit and onClick. Extending the specific components is not an option
for
me.
I did something I think it dangerous. Something like:
public Page onRuntimeException(Page page, RuntimeException e) {
Throwable current = e;
while (current != null !(current instanceof MyBusinessException))
{
current = current.getCause();
}
if (current != null) {
// MyBusinessException detected
page.error(Error: + current.getMessage());
return page;
} else {
return super.onRuntimeException(page, e);
}
}
When as exception is thrown, all the execution flow breaks, making some
things not happen. The question is: is the above code safe assuming that
MyException could be thrown only by methods like onSubmit and onClick?
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Exception-redirecting-to-source-page-tp15510198p15510198.html
Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Exception-redirecting-to-source-page-tp15510198p15528633.html
Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: wicket-security Custom Access Denied Page
Just finished testing your classes using my 1.3.1 development code and both your way and my way work, as it should. I don't get why using the permission instead of the permission name does not work for you. I did however just think of 1 caveat in using the permission name instead of the permission. This might not be relevant for you (since you have a very small policy file), but if anybody else is following this thread it might be relevant to them. If your policy file contains a principal foo with action render for principal p1 and a permission foo with action enable for principal p2 your hive will return both principals p1 and p2 eventhough you did hive.getPrincipals(new ...Permission(foo,enable). In this scenario it should only return p2 and not p1. Maurice On Feb 16, 2008 1:53 PM, Maurice Marrink [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 15, 2008 6:38 PM, Warren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maurice, Here is my SimpleCachingHive and my Principal. I did not extend Permissin, I didn't think I had to. I pretty much based my implementation on you tabs example minus the tabs. Should I extend Permission and override hashCode() and equals(Object obj). And if I do, how do I force my hive to use my extended Permission? No you don't have to extend permission, it is optional. You could for example create a ResourcePermission to check for permissions on file uploads or downloads. For example: permission org.ResourcePermission /*.*, read, write; //enables write permission on the root and every subdir Your hive would not have to have explicit knowledge of this new permission, it is sufficient if you declare it in your policy file and in an ISecurityCheck do something like SwarmStrategy.hasPermission(new ResourcePermission(/somefile.file)); Anyway moving away from this theoretical exercise and to your problem. Your principal looks fine, if i have some time I'll try and run it myself. One small difference i noticed (which should have no impact at all) is you also use the class to generate the hash and in my simpleprincipal i don't. But like i said this should not matter at all. Maurice - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
HybridUrlCodingStrategy ( and IndexedHybridUrlCodingStrategy ) bug
I created a JIRA issue but it seems that nobody have seen it. So i'm posting it here. Jonathan or Eelco can you have a look at it please ? https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-1343 -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/HybridUrlCodingStrategy-%28-and-IndexedHybridUrlCodingStrategy-%29-bug-tp15530576p15530576.html Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
A subproject for Just Model State
Hi, i'm on a project which consists mostly of stateless pages but sometimes i need to save some ( little ) state from which i can recover the page so i have decided to start a subproject of my own to help the developer just save the models of some componenents to session. Can you give me an advice where to start from ? I mean should i work on models and create sth like SessionPersistentModel or should i override or change the component api ? I think that the model approach is sufficient but i'm not sure how and when to attach and detach the model to session and how to dirty it for clustering. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/A-subproject-for-Just-Model-State-tp15530579p15530579.html Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[Announcement] Wicket Security 1.3.0 final has been released
Version 1.3.0 has been made available on sourceforge and the wicketstuff maven repository. For those who cannot wait to get there hands on this release here are instruction on how to obtain your copy Maven users update your pom to version 1.3.0 (wasp, swarm and the examples) Also make sure your wicket-stuff repository is set to download releases as well: repositories repository idwicket-snaps/id urlhttp://wicketstuff.org/maven/repository/url snapshots enabledtrue/enabled /snapshots releases enabledtrue/enabled important /releases /repository /repositories Or you can download all the files from sourceforge http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=134391 Changes -A couple of bugs were found and fixed -We made sure everything runs on wicket1.3.0 as well as 1.3.1 Maurice - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: wicket-security Custom Access Denied Page
Maurice, Can you show me your code? I would rather do it your way than mine. My policy file will be much more complicated than the one I am testing with. -Original Message- From: Maurice Marrink [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 6:27 AM To: users@wicket.apache.org Subject: Re: wicket-security Custom Access Denied Page Just finished testing your classes using my 1.3.1 development code and both your way and my way work, as it should. I don't get why using the permission instead of the permission name does not work for you. I did however just think of 1 caveat in using the permission name instead of the permission. This might not be relevant for you (since you have a very small policy file), but if anybody else is following this thread it might be relevant to them. If your policy file contains a principal foo with action render for principal p1 and a permission foo with action enable for principal p2 your hive will return both principals p1 and p2 eventhough you did hive.getPrincipals(new ...Permission(foo,enable). In this scenario it should only return p2 and not p1. Maurice On Feb 16, 2008 1:53 PM, Maurice Marrink [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 15, 2008 6:38 PM, Warren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maurice, Here is my SimpleCachingHive and my Principal. I did not extend Permissin, I didn't think I had to. I pretty much based my implementation on you tabs example minus the tabs. Should I extend Permission and override hashCode() and equals(Object obj). And if I do, how do I force my hive to use my extended Permission? No you don't have to extend permission, it is optional. You could for example create a ResourcePermission to check for permissions on file uploads or downloads. For example: permission org.ResourcePermission /*.*, read, write; //enables write permission on the root and every subdir Your hive would not have to have explicit knowledge of this new permission, it is sufficient if you declare it in your policy file and in an ISecurityCheck do something like SwarmStrategy.hasPermission(new ResourcePermission(/somefile.file)); Anyway moving away from this theoretical exercise and to your problem. Your principal looks fine, if i have some time I'll try and run it myself. One small difference i noticed (which should have no impact at all) is you also use the class to generate the hash and in my simpleprincipal i don't. But like i said this should not matter at all. Maurice - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: org.apache.wicket.protocol.http.WebSession cannot be cast to my.CustomSession
Neither the constructor of CustomSession nor the constructor of WebSession is called. The error occurs much earlier, as you can see in the stack trace posted in my first post. I think I will drop overriding the default session and work with setAttribute()/getAttribute() instead. Seems to save me a lot of trouble... -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/org.apache.wicket.protocol.http.WebSession-cannot-be-cast-to-my.CustomSession-tp15480791p15539346.html Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Announcement] Wicket Security 1.3.0 final has been released
Sweet (: On Feb 17, 2008 7:20 PM, Maurice Marrink [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Version 1.3.0 has been made available on sourceforge and the wicketstuff maven repository. -- sp
Re: org.apache.wicket.protocol.http.WebSession cannot be cast to my.CustomSession
Yes, with a normal Wicket-Application it works just perfect. I'm using the SpringWebApplication cause of createSpringBeanProxy() and the automatic init of the configured ApplicationContext (http://cwiki.apache.org/WICKET/spring.html). Manually initializing would be a huge tradeoff for working tests. :) -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/org.apache.wicket.protocol.http.WebSession-cannot-be-cast-to-my.CustomSession-tp15480791p15539854.html Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: org.apache.wicket.protocol.http.WebSession cannot be cast to my.CustomSession
I'm referring to both. The CCE occurs if I construct the WicketTester without my application as an argument. If I do, I get the illegal state exception. Problem with this seems to be, that the ServletContext created at MockWebApplication:130 does not contain the required WebApplicationContext (SpringWebApplication:77) because it has never been set. Martin Funk-3 wrote: So what are you referring to? The ClassCast or the IllegalState exception? For the later I'd say its a sign, that your SpringWebApplication didn't get initialized, aka it didn't find its 'ApplicationContext.xml' I'd say have a look at the wicket-examples esp.: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/wicket/trunk/jdk-1.5/wicket-examples/src/main/webapp/WEB-INF/web.xml mf 2008/2/18, Sven Schliesing [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Neither the constructor of CustomSession nor the constructor of WebSession is called. The error occurs much earlier, as you can see in the stack trace posted in my first post. I think I will drop overriding the default session and work with setAttribute()/getAttribute() instead. Seems to save me a lot of trouble... -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/org.apache.wicket.protocol.http.WebSession-cannot-be-cast-to-my.CustomSession-tp15480791p15539346.html Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/org.apache.wicket.protocol.http.WebSession-cannot-be-cast-to-my.CustomSession-tp15480791p15540021.html Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: org.apache.wicket.protocol.http.WebSession cannot be cast to my.CustomSession
On Sun, 17 Feb 2008, Sven Schliesing wrote: I'm using the SpringWebApplication cause of createSpringBeanProxy() and the automatic init of the configured ApplicationContext (http://cwiki.apache.org/WICKET/spring.html). Manually initializing would be a huge tradeoff for working tests. :) Hmm, I'm not sure I really see the added value of making your Application extends SpringWebApplication, maybe just because I never did it. Maybe you should considering just ripping the relevant bits out to your own Application class. You can also just set your fake ApplicationContext to your Application before starting WicketTester, that way your code works too. Best wishes, Timo -- Timo Rantalaiho Reaktor Innovations OyURL: http://www.ri.fi/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
