Re: Swarm: Authorization for WebMarkupContainer
Why would you want to delete those jars? I am busy using them and the appear to be working fine (for what I am using). Please can you explain what is broken/why it would be better to use 1.3-SNAPSHOT? What do I lose by reverting back to 1.3-SNAPSHOT? What is the latest version of Wicket that I can use with SWARM 1.3-SNAPSHOT? Thanks Mike Mr Mean wrote: ... Argh, i am only just reading you are using 1.3.1-SNAPSHOT. You should be using 1.3-SNAPSHOT. That does it i am deleting those jars. Maurice -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Swarm%3A-Authorization--for-WebMarkupContainer-tp17206272p17223972.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: Using generics with some non-generic classes in Wicket
I dont care, because i cant do any thing with the ? The only thing it
enforces is that it must now be a generic class which is annoying. Not
to mention that in that area eclipse and javac accept different
things
So or we in wicket dont use ? any where and have supress warning
everywhere for that or we do use it and then suddenly it is in my eyes
restricted to much.
On 5/14/08, Sebastiaan van Erk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Johan Compagner wrote:
yes thats the reason
you are calling the method add with a generified component but that
container itself is not generified
i dont like this about generics expecially the onces like this:
add(MarkupContainer? container)
then suddenly a none generified component cant be added...
thats really stupid ? should mean anything.. including none generics
No, that's not correct. For example, List? is much more restrictive
than a raw List (which is a ListObject). To a raw list you can add an
instance of any type whatever, i.e., list.add(new Object()). But in
List? the ? is a wildcard which says it could be any type there, i.e.,
it could be a ListInteger. But you can't add a new Object() to a
ListInteger!
Thus MarkupContainer? means MarkupContainer parameterized by some
unknown type, and *not* MarkupContainer parameterized by Object, which
is what the raw type means.
Regards,
Sebastiaan
johan
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 5:55 PM, Stefan Simik [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I have one idea,
the reason of the warnigs is, that parent of AjaxPagingNavigator is
PagingNavigator,
which has parent Panel --- that is not parameterized.
The same problem is with LoopItem, which extends the
WebMarkupContainer --- that is not parameterized.
? could this be the reason ?
Stefan Simik wrote:
Mhmm, it is meaningful ;) I will know in future, thx
One of the last occuring warning is, when working with
MarkupContainer#add(...) or #addOrReplace(...) method.
Example: I have a simple AjaxPagingNavigator, to which I add a simple
ListView
---
ListViewInteger menu = new ListViewInteger(id, numbers){
//populate metods
}
add(menu);//warning here
The warning says:
Type safety: The method add(Component...) belongs to the raw type
MarkupContainer.
References to generic type MarkupContainerT should be parameterized
I cannot find out, what's the warning reason, because ListView self is
parameterized.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Using-generics-with-some-non-generic-classes-in-Wicket-tp17208928p17212015.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]
Re: Swarm: Authorization for WebMarkupContainer
1.3.1-SNAPSHOT is an older version it has been renamed to follow wicket naming conventions to 1.3-SNAPSHOT. That is the major and minor versions will always be used to indicate the latest snapshot, this prevents users needing to change there pom whenever a new patch version has been released. I originally kept the old jars because someone might still depend on them, like you do. but lately it has become clear to me that they are causing a lot of confusion so i removed them last night. The 1.3.1-SNAPSHOT was actually a lot closer to the 1.3.0 jar then the current 1.3-SNAPSHOT is. So you would not be reverting back but actually take advantage of the latest changes :) For a list of changes see http://wicketstuff.org/confluence/display/STUFFWIKI/Wicket-Security+1.3.1#Wicket-Security1.3.1-migrateto1.3.1 Maurice On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 8:04 AM, RUMikeP [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why would you want to delete those jars? I am busy using them and the appear to be working fine (for what I am using). Please can you explain what is broken/why it would be better to use 1.3-SNAPSHOT? What do I lose by reverting back to 1.3-SNAPSHOT? What is the latest version of Wicket that I can use with SWARM 1.3-SNAPSHOT? Thanks Mike Mr Mean wrote: ... Argh, i am only just reading you are using 1.3.1-SNAPSHOT. You should be using 1.3-SNAPSHOT. That does it i am deleting those jars. Maurice -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Swarm%3A-Authorization--for-WebMarkupContainer-tp17206272p17223972.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]
Re: Using generics with some non-generic classes in Wicket
I dont think that user gets a warning if a param is of raw type. But
we have a warning there.
The problem is that for example MarkupContainer.add(Component) or
IVisitor.visit(Component) i dont care what component is put in
generified or not.
In add it really doesnt matter because we dont do anything with it.
With visitor it is different because the user could use it inside the
method. But it should be useable without warnings for generified and
none generfied components..
On 5/14/08, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
if we have a signature that accepts a raw type, will that also cause a
warning in user's code?
also having those suppress annotations practically _everywhere_ will be
annoying
-igor
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 11:56 PM, Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I dont care, because i cant do any thing with the ? The only thing it
enforces is that it must now be a generic class which is annoying. Not
to mention that in that area eclipse and javac accept different
things
So or we in wicket dont use ? any where and have supress warning
everywhere for that or we do use it and then suddenly it is in my eyes
restricted to much.
On 5/14/08, Sebastiaan van Erk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Johan Compagner wrote:
yes thats the reason
you are calling the method add with a generified component but that
container itself is not generified
i dont like this about generics expecially the onces like this:
add(MarkupContainer? container)
then suddenly a none generified component cant be added...
thats really stupid ? should mean anything.. including none
generics
No, that's not correct. For example, List? is much more restrictive
than a raw List (which is a ListObject). To a raw list you can add an
instance of any type whatever, i.e., list.add(new Object()). But in
List? the ? is a wildcard which says it could be any type there,
i.e.,
it could be a ListInteger. But you can't add a new Object() to a
ListInteger!
Thus MarkupContainer? means MarkupContainer parameterized by some
unknown type, and *not* MarkupContainer parameterized by Object, which
is what the raw type means.
Regards,
Sebastiaan
johan
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 5:55 PM, Stefan Simik
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I have one idea,
the reason of the warnigs is, that parent of AjaxPagingNavigator is
PagingNavigator,
which has parent Panel --- that is not parameterized.
The same problem is with LoopItem, which extends the
WebMarkupContainer --- that is not parameterized.
? could this be the reason ?
Stefan Simik wrote:
Mhmm, it is meaningful ;) I will know in future, thx
One of the last occuring warning is, when working with
MarkupContainer#add(...) or #addOrReplace(...) method.
Example: I have a simple AjaxPagingNavigator, to which I add a
simple
ListView
---
ListViewInteger menu = new ListViewInteger(id, numbers){
//populate metods
}
add(menu);//warning here
The warning says:
Type safety: The method add(Component...) belongs to the raw type
MarkupContainer.
References to generic type MarkupContainerT should be
parameterized
I cannot find out, what's the warning reason, because ListView self
is
parameterized.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Using-generics-with-some-non-generic-classes-in-Wicket-tp17208928p17212015.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]
-
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: Using generics with some non-generic classes in Wicket
My post kind of missed the point, I shouldn't post when I'm already half
asleep. :-)
Obviously MarkupContainerObject satisfies the MarkupContainer? in a
method argument, so it accepts the raw type. However, it generates a
warning because the method says it's generified, so you should be using
the generic type.
Johan Compagner wrote:
I dont care, because i cant do any thing with the ? The only thing it
enforces is that it must now be a generic class which is annoying. Not
to mention that in that area eclipse and javac accept different
things
The reason it warns you to use generics when generics are wanted is
because Sun wants to be able to make it *required* (in a future release)
to use generics where generics are wanted; at least, so I read... I
think in the real world they wouldn't dare to do this because it would
piss off so many users and break so much stuff. :-)
But the idea is that if something is generified you should be using a
type parameter, and using a raw type is *purely* for backwards
compatibility with legacy code.
Regards,
Sebastiaan
So or we in wicket dont use ? any where and have supress warning
everywhere for that or we do use it and then suddenly it is in my eyes
restricted to much.
I don't understand
On 5/14/08, Sebastiaan van Erk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Johan Compagner wrote:
yes thats the reason
you are calling the method add with a generified component but that
container itself is not generified
i dont like this about generics expecially the onces like this:
add(MarkupContainer? container)
then suddenly a none generified component cant be added...
thats really stupid ? should mean anything.. including none generics
No, that's not correct. For example, List? is much more restrictive
than a raw List (which is a ListObject). To a raw list you can add an
instance of any type whatever, i.e., list.add(new Object()). But in
List? the ? is a wildcard which says it could be any type there, i.e.,
it could be a ListInteger. But you can't add a new Object() to a
ListInteger!
Thus MarkupContainer? means MarkupContainer parameterized by some
unknown type, and *not* MarkupContainer parameterized by Object, which
is what the raw type means.
Regards,
Sebastiaan
johan
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 5:55 PM, Stefan Simik [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I have one idea,
the reason of the warnigs is, that parent of AjaxPagingNavigator is
PagingNavigator,
which has parent Panel --- that is not parameterized.
The same problem is with LoopItem, which extends the
WebMarkupContainer --- that is not parameterized.
? could this be the reason ?
Stefan Simik wrote:
Mhmm, it is meaningful ;) I will know in future, thx
One of the last occuring warning is, when working with
MarkupContainer#add(...) or #addOrReplace(...) method.
Example: I have a simple AjaxPagingNavigator, to which I add a simple
ListView
---
ListViewInteger menu = new ListViewInteger(id, numbers){
//populate metods
}
add(menu);//warning here
The warning says:
Type safety: The method add(Component...) belongs to the raw type
MarkupContainer.
References to generic type MarkupContainerT should be parameterized
I cannot find out, what's the warning reason, because ListView self is
parameterized.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Using-generics-with-some-non-generic-classes-in-Wicket-tp17208928p17212015.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]
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: Using generics with some non-generic classes in Wicket
The problem is that wicket needs an annotation
genericsOptional
so that all the warnings about raw types are gone.
A component only has to be generic if you use the IModel constructor or call
getModel(), getModelObject() methods..
for the rest it is not really needed
johan
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 9:28 AM, Sebastiaan van Erk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
My post kind of missed the point, I shouldn't post when I'm already half
asleep. :-)
Obviously MarkupContainerObject satisfies the MarkupContainer? in a
method argument, so it accepts the raw type. However, it generates a warning
because the method says it's generified, so you should be using the generic
type.
Johan Compagner wrote:
I dont care, because i cant do any thing with the ? The only thing it
enforces is that it must now be a generic class which is annoying. Not
to mention that in that area eclipse and javac accept different
things
The reason it warns you to use generics when generics are wanted is
because Sun wants to be able to make it *required* (in a future release) to
use generics where generics are wanted; at least, so I read... I think in
the real world they wouldn't dare to do this because it would piss off so
many users and break so much stuff. :-)
But the idea is that if something is generified you should be using a type
parameter, and using a raw type is *purely* for backwards compatibility with
legacy code.
Regards,
Sebastiaan
So or we in wicket dont use ? any where and have supress warning
everywhere for that or we do use it and then suddenly it is in my eyes
restricted to much.
I don't understand
On 5/14/08, Sebastiaan van Erk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Johan Compagner wrote:
yes thats the reason
you are calling the method add with a generified component but that
container itself is not generified
i dont like this about generics expecially the onces like this:
add(MarkupContainer? container)
then suddenly a none generified component cant be added...
thats really stupid ? should mean anything.. including none
generics
No, that's not correct. For example, List? is much more restrictive
than a raw List (which is a ListObject). To a raw list you can add
an
instance of any type whatever, i.e., list.add(new Object()). But in
List? the ? is a wildcard which says it could be any type there,
i.e.,
it could be a ListInteger. But you can't add a new Object() to a
ListInteger!
Thus MarkupContainer? means MarkupContainer parameterized by some
unknown type, and *not* MarkupContainer parameterized by Object,
which
is what the raw type means.
Regards,
Sebastiaan
johan
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 5:55 PM, Stefan Simik
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I have one idea,
the reason of the warnigs is, that parent of AjaxPagingNavigator
is
PagingNavigator,
which has parent Panel --- that is not parameterized.
The same problem is with LoopItem, which extends the
WebMarkupContainer --- that is not parameterized.
? could this be the reason ?
Stefan Simik wrote:
Mhmm, it is meaningful ;) I will know in future, thx
One of the last occuring warning is, when working with
MarkupContainer#add(...) or #addOrReplace(...) method.
Example: I have a simple AjaxPagingNavigator, to which I add a
simple
ListView
---
ListViewInteger menu = new ListViewInteger(id, numbers){
//populate metods
}
add(menu);//warning here
The warning says:
Type safety: The method add(Component...) belongs to the raw
type
MarkupContainer.
References to generic type MarkupContainerT should be
parameterized
I cannot find out, what's the warning reason, because ListView
self is
parameterized.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Using-generics-with-some-non-generic-classes-in-Wicket-tp17208928p17212015.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]
Re: persistent sessions in Tomcat
Thanks, I tried to check this for wicket examples and it works with default server configuration. This means that there are some error in my application... but I haven't any error messages... ok, I'll continue experiments. Does that message page expired mean that the session is gone? So I have next question: default session timeout for Tomcat is 30 minutes but page expired appears much earlier - even for wicket examples. Why? Johan Compagner wrote: the default config of tomcat already restarts the wicket example sessions just fine for me I havent changed 1 thing about that On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 11:59 AM, ElSe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do you mean tomcat logs? No I don't. Some *.ser files appear in the work\Catalina\localhost\application directory so session is serialized but isn't restored. Do I understand correctly that my assumption is correct and the wicket session must be restored with the tomcat persistent manager? So there must be some error in the configuration of the server or application itself? igor.vaynberg wrote: do you get any serialization errors in your logs, you might be trying to store something non serializable in the wicket component. -igor On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 1:09 AM, ElSe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I'm just started experiments with Wicket so I suppose my question is stupid however I haven't found the answer on the forum. The point was to understand how to organize persistent sessions for the wicket application. It seemed to me that such application should work with the standard Tomcat mechanism transparently as any other servlet. So I have written simple wicket application - just two pages that show sessionid, configured Tomcat persistent manager and started session. Then I restarted the server and tried to pass from one page to another waiting to see the same sessionid. But I have seen page has expired. Should I provide some serialization support in my application or there is some error in my logic or there aren't such possibility and I want something strange(c)? BR -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/persistent-sessions-in-Tomcat-tp17183181p17183181.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/persistent-sessions-in-Tomcat-tp17183181p17205069.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/persistent-sessions-in-Tomcat-tp17183181p17226017.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 Portlets in Liferay 5
Hi Thijs, We are currently trying to integrate Liferay 5 with wicket 1.3. Can you give us the advise you offered? That would be very nice. Thank you in advance, Benjamin On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 11:33 PM, Thijs Vonk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Currently without building wicket against Liferay (using com.liferay.portlet.renderresponseimpl, instead of javax.portlet.renderresponse) it is not possible to run wicket without losing most of wickets functionality. I can, if you want, give you a patch and some instructions to get wicket working on liferay 5, but we are still modifying wicket and Liferay code to get things working as we want it. So I can't guaranty anything. Thijs Bobby Quninne wrote: Hi there, I am currently considering using wicket 1.3.3(and newer) with liferay 5. The site is going to be used for backend administration, standard CRUD stuff. How big a risk is it, using wicket portal and liferay? Thanks Thijs wrote: Hi, I'm working on getting wicket compatible with jsr-286 now. However while doing this I've noticed that Liferay has still some major issues regarding jsr-286. Especially regarding setting properties on the response (essentially setting response headers, cookies, etc) there is still some work to be done. They also don't support the MARKUP_HEAD_ELEMENT_SUPPORT feaure jet, what would be a really nice addition because of the CSS and JS files wicket adds to it's pages. Comment and vote on http://support.liferay.com/browse/LEP-5828. and track it to follow the property changes I'm also planning on opening a Wicket-jira issue so that you can track the progress of the wicket implementation. But we will have to wait at least until the portlet 2.0 specifications get official and added to a maven repository before we can add anything to the wicket code base. Besides that it's a lot of work and I'm doing this in my free hours so don't get over excited just jet :). I'll post a message on the list when I open the jira issue, and I'll attach patches to that issue as soon as I feel confident about the work I've been doing. I hope that answers your questions a bit. Thijs gaugat wrote: I've read in the forums, that it is better to wait for Liferay 5 (JSR 286) to develop portlets in Apache Wicket. So has anyone developed portlets using Wicket and deployed them in Liferay 5?. If you have, is there a sample wicket portlet posted somewhere that I could look at? Are there still issues with Wicket and Liferay? - 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: Why Localizer Retained so many heapsize?
Hello everyone. I override Localizer.putIntoCache method. and it really reduce the heapsize usage of Localizer. The application is more stable now although the key remains large. Hope we can find a way to shorter the key length. thanks everyone. 2008/5/13 Eirik Rude [EMAIL PROTECTED]: A soft reference is very common for this type of thing. I know some of ICU's resources are stored this way. Jonathan Locke wrote: maybe localizer should limit its size or use a soft reference cache? Johan Compagner wrote: Can you really see what it holds? Almost 2G in memory in localizer is extreme... Thats really a lot of strings.. You could try to read that dump with yourkit if your current one doesnt show enough. On 5/9/08, Quan Zhou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello everyone. I recently develop my App use Wicket1.3.3. It's my first time to use this framework and I feel it's really really a perfect framework for me. My app support both Simplified Chinese , Traditional Chinese, I implement this with Wicket i18n feature. With the load increasing these days, I found my app would become very lag abount every 24 hours ,so that i would only restart it without any choice. when I found the lag, My log records many Exceptions like : after 1 minute the Pagemap null is still locked by: Thread[http-8080-321,5,main], giving up trying to get the page for path xxx I check the JVM status with jstat -gc , It tells that the Heapsize is full even after full GC. My VM paraemter is -Xms2000m -Xmx2000m -XX:MaxNewSize=250m -XX:MaxPermSize=250m My deploy server has 2*CPU and 4G memory, Redhat AS4 OS + tomcat 6.0. There're 2000 sessions on the day while the timeout threshold is 15 minutes. So i dump the whole heapsize with the command jmap -dump:live,format=b,file=3.dump.hprof processid and i truely get a 2G size dump files. I use SAP Memory Analyer to see what're stored in HeapMemory. and I found a strange number of Retained Heap usage: Classname ShallowHeap RetainHeap RetainedHeap% [EMAIL PROTECTED] 16 1,755,070,35287.64% [EMAIL PROTECTED] 48 1,755,070,33687.69% [EMAIL PROTECTED] 33,554,448 1,755,069,632 87.69% - [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... 24 3928 0.00% - [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... 24 3928 0.00% - [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... 24 3928 0.00% - [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... 24 3928 0.00% - [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... 24 3928 0.00% - [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... 24 3928 0.00% + 2,863,659 more... Is that means that the Localizer Object used most of the heap size? or Is this number normal for Wicket App? I wonder whether I forget to release the memory by my mis-using of i18n feature? Is there any attentions I must pay to when dealing with Localizer? This problem annoys me more the 2 weeks. I really need some help. Thanks . - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Why-Localizer-Retained-so-many-heapsize--tp17142582p17199950.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: FYI: new wicket site
the site looks nice. i especially like the advanced dropdown box. for us non-dutch, does eropuit mean anything in particular? cheers, Gerolf On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 10:36 AM, lars vonk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all, A new Wicket site is born! It's a Dutch site on which you can search for day trips and such. See: www.eropuit.nl. Thanks to the user- and dev-group for answering any questions we had during the process. Lars
Re: FYI: new wicket site
nice :) one thing though: i went searching for uitjes and after clicking the volgende button a couple of times i selected one to show more details. Now when i use the browser backbutton or the terug link i always end up at the first page of my search results. I would have expected to return to the page i came from. Also if i then click volgende i remain on the first page, clicking volgende again takes me to the 2nd page. @Gerolf er op uit could be loosely translated as going places or taking a trip. Maurice On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 10:36 AM, lars vonk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all, A new Wicket site is born! It's a Dutch site on which you can search for day trips and such. See: www.eropuit.nl. Thanks to the user- and dev-group for answering any questions we had during the process. Lars - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FYI: new wicket site
It is a combination of 3 words 'er op uit' and literally means 'going out'. It has a very active connotation. Regards, Erik. Gerolf Seitz wrote: the site looks nice. i especially like the advanced dropdown box. for us non-dutch, does eropuit mean anything in particular? cheers, Gerolf On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 10:36 AM, lars vonk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all, A new Wicket site is born! It's a Dutch site on which you can search for day trips and such. See: www.eropuit.nl. Thanks to the user- and dev-group for answering any questions we had during the process. Lars - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
FYI: new wicket site
Hi all, A new Wicket site is born! It's a Dutch site on which you can search for day trips and such. See: www.eropuit.nl. Thanks to the user- and dev-group for answering any questions we had during the process. Lars
Re: FYI: new wicket site
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 10:52 AM, Maurice Marrink [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: @Gerolf er op uit could be loosely translated as going places or taking a trip. thx :) Maurice On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 10:36 AM, lars vonk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all, A new Wicket site is born! It's a Dutch site on which you can search for day trips and such. See: www.eropuit.nl. Thanks to the user- and dev-group for answering any questions we had during the process. Lars - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FYI: new wicket site
Thanks for spotting that. We'll look into it. Lars On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 10:52 AM, Maurice Marrink [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: nice :) one thing though: i went searching for uitjes and after clicking the volgende button a couple of times i selected one to show more details. Now when i use the browser backbutton or the terug link i always end up at the first page of my search results. I would have expected to return to the page i came from. Also if i then click volgende i remain on the first page, clicking volgende again takes me to the 2nd page. @Gerolf er op uit could be loosely translated as going places or taking a trip. Maurice On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 10:36 AM, lars vonk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all, A new Wicket site is born! It's a Dutch site on which you can search for day trips and such. See: www.eropuit.nl. Thanks to the user- and dev-group for answering any questions we had during the process. Lars - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Swarm: Authorization for WebMarkupContainer
Hi,
thanks for the test example. With the help of that I found the error in the
policy file:
the permission of the page must not contain the inherit action, when there are
secure components on the page, which are not permitted.
grant principal org.apache.wicket.security.hive.authorization.SimplePrincipal
APPL_TEST
{
permission ${ComponentPermission} ${front}.ProductAreaListPage, render;
permission ${ComponentPermission} ${front}.ProductAreaListPage, enable;
};
Now a user with permission APPL_TEST can open the page ProductAreaListPage,
but he cannot see the secure component resultHiddenPanel.
When the action inherit is added to the first line, the resultHiddenPanel
is visible.
I need the second line, because the user calls the page via the menu (link).
grant principal org.apache.wicket.security.hive.authorization.SimplePrincipal
APPL_ADMIN
{
permission ${ComponentPermission}
${front}.ProductAreaListPage:resultHiddenPanel, inherit, render;
permission ${ComponentPermission} ${front}.ProductAreaListPage, enable;
};
A user who has the permission APPL_ADMIN can see the page and the secure
component resultHiddenPanel.
So am I right, that the first line implies the security permission for the page
?
I have changed to 1.3-SNAPSHOT and I will go on working with that.
Andrea
*Von:* users@wicket.apache.org
*Gesendet:* 14.05.08 00:07:49
*An:* users@wicket.apache.org
*Betreff:* Re: Swarm: Authorization for WebMarkupContainer
Ok, so i did some testing (and in the process found another bug,
unrelated to your issue :)), but i could not reproduce your permission
denied.
Here is my simple setup:
public class ContainerPage2 extends SecureWebPage
{
/**
* Construct.
*/
public ContainerPage2()
{
add(new Label(label, always visible));
SecureMarkupContainer container = new SecureMarkupContainer(secure);
container.add(new Label(hidden, hidden label));
add(container);
}
/**
* Simple secure container.
*
* @author marrink
*/
private static final class SecureMarkupContainer extends WebMarkupContainer
implements
ISecureComponent
{
/**
*
*/
private static final long serialVersionUID = 1L;
/**
*
* Construct.
*
* @param id
*/
public SecureMarkupContainer(String id)
{
super(id);
setSecurityCheck(new ContainerSecurityCheck(this));
}
/**
*
* @see org.apache.wicket.security.components.ISecureComponent#getSecurityCheck()
*/
public ISecurityCheck getSecurityCheck()
{
return SecureComponentHelper.getSecurityCheck(this);
}
/**
*
* @see
org.apache.wicket.security.components.ISecureComponent#isActionAuthorized(java.lang.String)
*/
public boolean isActionAuthorized(String waspAction)
{
return SecureComponentHelper.isActionAuthorized(this, waspAction);
}
/**
*
* @see
org.apache.wicket.security.components.ISecureComponent#isActionAuthorized(org.apache.wicket.security.actions.WaspAction)
*/
public boolean isActionAuthorized(WaspAction action)
{
return SecureComponentHelper.isActionAuthorized(this, action);
}
/**
*
* @see org.apache.wicket.security.components.ISecureComponent#isAuthenticated()
*/
public boolean isAuthenticated()
{
return SecureComponentHelper.isAuthenticated(this);
}
/**
*
* @see
org.apache.wicket.security.components.ISecureComponent#setSecurityCheck(org.apache.wicket.security.checks.ISecurityCheck)
*/
public void setSecurityCheck(ISecurityCheck check)
{
SecureComponentHelper.setSecurityCheck(this, check);
}
}
}
and my policy file looks like this:
grant principal ${SimplePrincipal} container4
{
//this does not permit secure components on a ContainerPage2 to be visible
permission ${ComponentPermission} ${myPackage}.ContainerPage2, render;
permission ${ComponentPermission} ${myPackage}.ContainerPage2, enable;
};
grant principal ${SimplePrincipal} container5
{
//this grants the permission to any component with id secure on a
ContainerPage2
permission ${ComponentPermission}
${myPackage}.ContainerPage2:secure, inherit, render;
permission ${ComponentPermission} ${myPackage}.ContainerPage2, enable;
};
grant principal ${SimplePrincipal} container6
{
//this grants the permission to any SecureMarkupContainer inside a
ContainerPage2
permission ${ComponentPermission}
${myPackage}.ContainerPage2:${myPackage}.ContainerPage2$SecureMarkupContainer,
inherit, render;
permission ${ComponentPermission} ${myPackage}.ContainerPage2, enable;
};
grant principal ${SimplePrincipal} container7
{
//this grants the permission to any SecureMarkupContainer, even when
placed on other pages (if it wasn't a private class)
permission ${ComponentPermission}
${myPackage}.ContainerPage2$SecureMarkupContainer, inherit,
render;
permission ${ComponentPermission} ${myPackage}.ContainerPage2, enable;
};
Argh, i am only just reading you are using 1.3.1-SNAPSHOT. You should
be using 1.3-SNAPSHOT. That does it i am deleting those jars.
Maurice
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 8:10 PM, Maurice Marrink [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 6:48 PM, Andrea Jahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I've changed to the
ReloadingWicketFilter for Classes in a referenced project?
Hi there, i'm trying to create a ReloadingWicketFilter. I've tried a lot especially reading (WICKET-685) ReloadingWicketFilter not working with markup inheritance ( http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg01938.html) but nothing worked for me. My created ReloadingWicketFilter works fine for the classes i wish to reload if they are in the project. But if I want to reload classes that are in a referenced project it doesn't work with my ReloadingWicketFilter. Could it be that the ReloadingFilter is not able to reload classes from a referenced project? I'm new to wicket so please be nice ;) Thanks in advance! regards, norman
Re: Swarm: Authorization for WebMarkupContainer
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 11:53 AM, Andrea Jahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
thanks for the test example. With the help of that I found the error in the
policy file:
the permission of the page must not contain the inherit action, when there
are secure components on the page, which are not permitted.
Thats why i asked :)
grant principal
org.apache.wicket.security.hive.authorization.SimplePrincipal APPL_TEST
{
permission ${ComponentPermission} ${front}.ProductAreaListPage, render;
permission ${ComponentPermission} ${front}.ProductAreaListPage, enable;
};
Now a user with permission APPL_TEST can open the page
ProductAreaListPage, but he cannot see the secure component
resultHiddenPanel.
When the action inherit is added to the first line, the
resultHiddenPanel is visible.
I need the second line, because the user calls the page via the menu (link).
Correct, however you can shorten it to one permission with a render,
enable action.
The reason i always split my permissions inherit, render and
enable is because i often want all child components to be visible
but not all of them editable (enabled)
In this case there is no inherit action and thus you can put
everything in 1 permission.
grant principal
org.apache.wicket.security.hive.authorization.SimplePrincipal APPL_ADMIN
{
permission ${ComponentPermission}
${front}.ProductAreaListPage:resultHiddenPanel, inherit, render;
permission ${ComponentPermission} ${front}.ProductAreaListPage, enable;
};
A user who has the permission APPL_ADMIN can see the page and the secure
component resultHiddenPanel.
So am I right, that the first line implies the security permission for the
page ?
Both do actually. inherit render is for visibility and to allow
users to instantiate that page. (page instantiation is actually the
access action but it is implied by every other action and therefore
can be omitted from the policy. It is used internally though).
enable is used by SecurePageLinks. For example if i have a
SecurePageLink link on a Page A pointing to Page B and i want only
specific users to have access to B then i would add permission
${ComponentPermission} B, enable;
for those users. every other user will not see the link. although it
is logical if you think about it it is different from other components
where a permission ${ComponentPermission} A:link, render; or
permission ${ComponentPermission} A, inherit, render; would be
required. This behavior can be changed though :)
Hmm reading back the above i can see how you might get a bit confused.
I was just trying to explain it, maybe a bit to condensed.
Anyhow most people require both permissions :)
Maurice
I have changed to 1.3-SNAPSHOT and I will go on working with that.
Andrea
*Von:* users@wicket.apache.org
*Gesendet:* 14.05.08 00:07:49
*An:* users@wicket.apache.org
*Betreff:* Re: Swarm: Authorization for WebMarkupContainer
Ok, so i did some testing (and in the process found another bug,
unrelated to your issue :)), but i could not reproduce your permission
denied.
Here is my simple setup:
public class ContainerPage2 extends SecureWebPage
{
/**
* Construct.
*/
public ContainerPage2()
{
add(new Label(label, always visible));
SecureMarkupContainer container = new SecureMarkupContainer(secure);
container.add(new Label(hidden, hidden label));
add(container);
}
/**
* Simple secure container.
*
* @author marrink
*/
private static final class SecureMarkupContainer extends WebMarkupContainer
implements
ISecureComponent
{
/**
*
*/
private static final long serialVersionUID = 1L;
/**
*
* Construct.
*
* @param id
*/
public SecureMarkupContainer(String id)
{
super(id);
setSecurityCheck(new ContainerSecurityCheck(this));
}
/**
*
* @see
org.apache.wicket.security.components.ISecureComponent#getSecurityCheck()
*/
public ISecurityCheck getSecurityCheck()
{
return SecureComponentHelper.getSecurityCheck(this);
}
/**
*
* @see
org.apache.wicket.security.components.ISecureComponent#isActionAuthorized(java.lang.String)
*/
public boolean isActionAuthorized(String waspAction)
{
return SecureComponentHelper.isActionAuthorized(this, waspAction);
}
/**
*
* @see
org.apache.wicket.security.components.ISecureComponent#isActionAuthorized(org.apache.wicket.security.actions.WaspAction)
*/
public boolean isActionAuthorized(WaspAction action)
{
return SecureComponentHelper.isActionAuthorized(this, action);
}
/**
*
* @see
org.apache.wicket.security.components.ISecureComponent#isAuthenticated()
*/
public boolean isAuthenticated()
{
return SecureComponentHelper.isAuthenticated(this);
}
/**
*
* @see
org.apache.wicket.security.components.ISecureComponent#setSecurityCheck(org.apache.wicket.security.checks.ISecurityCheck)
*/
public void setSecurityCheck(ISecurityCheck check)
{
Re: Swarm: Authorization for WebMarkupContainer
I just tried to reproduce the problem, why the resultHiddenPanel was not
visible, when I used the ContainerSecurityCheck in the class
SecureWebMarkupContainer (what I do now also). I used the old policy file, the
PolicyFileHiveFactory instead of the SwarmPolicyFileHiveFactory, ... but I
cannot reproduce the permission denied.
Now it always works correct ;-)
I think the reason is eliminated in 1.3-SNAPSHOT .
Now I will try to secure other types of components on the pages, test the
different settings for the permissions you explained below and after that I
have to find out how to set data permissions.
Andrea
*Von:* users@wicket.apache.org
*Gesendet:* 14.05.08 12:35:11
*An:* users@wicket.apache.org
*Betreff:* Re: Swarm: Authorization for WebMarkupContainer
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 11:53 AM, Andrea Jahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
thanks for the test example. With the help of that I found the error in the
policy file:
the permission of the page must not contain the inherit action, when there
are secure components on the page, which are not permitted.
Thats why i asked :)
grant principal org.apache.wicket.security.hive.authorization.SimplePrincipal
APPL_TEST
{
permission ${ComponentPermission} ${front}.ProductAreaListPage, render;
permission ${ComponentPermission} ${front}.ProductAreaListPage, enable;
};
Now a user with permission APPL_TEST can open the page ProductAreaListPage,
but he cannot see the secure component resultHiddenPanel.
When the action inherit is added to the first line, the resultHiddenPanel
is visible.
I need the second line, because the user calls the page via the menu (link).
Correct, however you can shorten it to one permission with a render,
enable action.
The reason i always split my permissions inherit, render and
enable is because i often want all child components to be visible
but not all of them editable (enabled)
In this case there is no inherit action and thus you can put
everything in 1 permission.
grant principal org.apache.wicket.security.hive.authorization.SimplePrincipal
APPL_ADMIN
{
permission ${ComponentPermission}
${front}.ProductAreaListPage:resultHiddenPanel, inherit, render;
permission ${ComponentPermission} ${front}.ProductAreaListPage, enable;
};
A user who has the permission APPL_ADMIN can see the page and the secure
component resultHiddenPanel.
So am I right, that the first line implies the security permission for the
page ?
Both do actually. inherit render is for visibility and to allow
users to instantiate that page. (page instantiation is actually the
access action but it is implied by every other action and therefore
can be omitted from the policy. It is used internally though).
enable is used by SecurePageLinks. For example if i have a
SecurePageLink link on a Page A pointing to Page B and i want only
specific users to have access to B then i would add permission
${ComponentPermission} B, enable;
for those users. every other user will not see the link. although it
is logical if you think about it it is different from other components
where a permission ${ComponentPermission} A:link, render; or
permission ${ComponentPermission} A, inherit, render; would be
required. This behavior can be changed though :)
Hmm reading back the above i can see how you might get a bit confused.
I was just trying to explain it, maybe a bit to condensed.
Anyhow most people require both permissions :)
Maurice
I have changed to 1.3-SNAPSHOT and I will go on working with that.
Andrea
*Von:* users@wicket.apache.org
*Gesendet:* 14.05.08 00:07:49
*An:* users@wicket.apache.org
*Betreff:* Re: Swarm: Authorization for WebMarkupContainer
Ok, so i did some testing (and in the process found another bug,
unrelated to your issue :)), but i could not reproduce your permission
denied.
Here is my simple setup:
public class ContainerPage2 extends SecureWebPage
{
/**
* Construct.
*/
public ContainerPage2()
{
add(new Label(label, always visible));
SecureMarkupContainer container = new SecureMarkupContainer(secure);
container.add(new Label(hidden, hidden label));
add(container);
}
/**
* Simple secure container.
*
* @author marrink
*/
private static final class SecureMarkupContainer extends WebMarkupContainer
implements
ISecureComponent
{
/**
*
*/
private static final long serialVersionUID = 1L;
/**
*
* Construct.
*
* @param id
*/
public SecureMarkupContainer(String id)
{
super(id);
setSecurityCheck(new ContainerSecurityCheck(this));
}
/**
*
* @see
org.apache.wicket.security.components.ISecureComponent#getSecurityCheck()
*/
public ISecurityCheck getSecurityCheck()
{
return SecureComponentHelper.getSecurityCheck(this);
}
/**
*
* @see
org.apache.wicket.security.components.ISecureComponent#isActionAuthorized(java.lang.String)
*/
public boolean isActionAuthorized(String waspAction)
{
return SecureComponentHelper.isActionAuthorized(this, waspAction);
}
Re: Swarm: Authorization for WebMarkupContainer
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 1:10 PM, Andrea Jahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just tried to reproduce the problem, why the resultHiddenPanel was not
visible, when I used the ContainerSecurityCheck in the class
SecureWebMarkupContainer (what I do now also). I used the old policy file,
the PolicyFileHiveFactory instead of the SwarmPolicyFileHiveFactory, ... but
I cannot reproduce the permission denied.
Now it always works correct ;-)
I think the reason is eliminated in 1.3-SNAPSHOT .
Correct, the 1.3.1-SNAPSHOT contained old code.
Now I will try to secure other types of components on the pages, test the
different settings for the permissions you explained below and after that I
have to find out how to set data permissions.
I just committed a DataSecurityCheck ( a very simple class) to help
you do just that. just use it like any other ISecurityCheck (e.g
ContainerSecurityCheck)
Maurice
Andrea
*Von:* users@wicket.apache.org
*Gesendet:* 14.05.08 12:35:11
*An:* users@wicket.apache.org
*Betreff:* Re: Swarm: Authorization for WebMarkupContainer
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 11:53 AM, Andrea Jahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
thanks for the test example. With the help of that I found the error in the
policy file:
the permission of the page must not contain the inherit action, when there
are secure components on the page, which are not permitted.
Thats why i asked :)
grant principal
org.apache.wicket.security.hive.authorization.SimplePrincipal APPL_TEST
{
permission ${ComponentPermission} ${front}.ProductAreaListPage, render;
permission ${ComponentPermission} ${front}.ProductAreaListPage, enable;
};
Now a user with permission APPL_TEST can open the page
ProductAreaListPage, but he cannot see the secure component
resultHiddenPanel.
When the action inherit is added to the first line, the
resultHiddenPanel is visible.
I need the second line, because the user calls the page via the menu (link).
Correct, however you can shorten it to one permission with a render,
enable action.
The reason i always split my permissions inherit, render and
enable is because i often want all child components to be visible
but not all of them editable (enabled)
In this case there is no inherit action and thus you can put
everything in 1 permission.
grant principal
org.apache.wicket.security.hive.authorization.SimplePrincipal APPL_ADMIN
{
permission ${ComponentPermission}
${front}.ProductAreaListPage:resultHiddenPanel, inherit, render;
permission ${ComponentPermission} ${front}.ProductAreaListPage, enable;
};
A user who has the permission APPL_ADMIN can see the page and the secure
component resultHiddenPanel.
So am I right, that the first line implies the security permission for the
page ?
Both do actually. inherit render is for visibility and to allow
users to instantiate that page. (page instantiation is actually the
access action but it is implied by every other action and therefore
can be omitted from the policy. It is used internally though).
enable is used by SecurePageLinks. For example if i have a
SecurePageLink link on a Page A pointing to Page B and i want only
specific users to have access to B then i would add permission
${ComponentPermission} B, enable;
for those users. every other user will not see the link. although it
is logical if you think about it it is different from other components
where a permission ${ComponentPermission} A:link, render; or
permission ${ComponentPermission} A, inherit, render; would be
required. This behavior can be changed though :)
Hmm reading back the above i can see how you might get a bit confused.
I was just trying to explain it, maybe a bit to condensed.
Anyhow most people require both permissions :)
Maurice
I have changed to 1.3-SNAPSHOT and I will go on working with that.
Andrea
*Von:* users@wicket.apache.org
*Gesendet:* 14.05.08 00:07:49
*An:* users@wicket.apache.org
*Betreff:* Re: Swarm: Authorization for WebMarkupContainer
Ok, so i did some testing (and in the process found another bug,
unrelated to your issue :)), but i could not reproduce your permission
denied.
Here is my simple setup:
public class ContainerPage2 extends SecureWebPage
{
/**
* Construct.
*/
public ContainerPage2()
{
add(new Label(label, always visible));
SecureMarkupContainer container = new SecureMarkupContainer(secure);
container.add(new Label(hidden, hidden label));
add(container);
}
/**
* Simple secure container.
*
* @author marrink
*/
private static final class SecureMarkupContainer extends WebMarkupContainer
implements
ISecureComponent
{
/**
*
*/
private static final long serialVersionUID = 1L;
/**
*
* Construct.
*
* @param id
*/
public SecureMarkupContainer(String id)
{
super(id);
setSecurityCheck(new ContainerSecurityCheck(this));
}
/**
*
* @see
org.apache.wicket.security.components.ISecureComponent#getSecurityCheck()
*/
public
Re: FYI: new wicket site
ahh with view source i can finally see that it is really wicket ;) its not that you dont use any javascript... man what an includes :) johan On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 10:52 AM, Maurice Marrink [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: nice :) one thing though: i went searching for uitjes and after clicking the volgende button a couple of times i selected one to show more details. Now when i use the browser backbutton or the terug link i always end up at the first page of my search results. I would have expected to return to the page i came from. Also if i then click volgende i remain on the first page, clicking volgende again takes me to the 2nd page. @Gerolf er op uit could be loosely translated as going places or taking a trip. Maurice On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 10:36 AM, lars vonk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all, A new Wicket site is born! It's a Dutch site on which you can search for day trips and such. See: www.eropuit.nl. Thanks to the user- and dev-group for answering any questions we had during the process. Lars - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why Localizer Retained so many heapsize?
but what did you do there in that method? nothing? you dont cache anything anymore? On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 10:29 AM, Quan Zhou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello everyone. I override Localizer.putIntoCache method. and it really reduce the heapsize usage of Localizer. The application is more stable now although the key remains large. Hope we can find a way to shorter the key length. thanks everyone. 2008/5/13 Eirik Rude [EMAIL PROTECTED]: A soft reference is very common for this type of thing. I know some of ICU's resources are stored this way. Jonathan Locke wrote: maybe localizer should limit its size or use a soft reference cache? Johan Compagner wrote: Can you really see what it holds? Almost 2G in memory in localizer is extreme... Thats really a lot of strings.. You could try to read that dump with yourkit if your current one doesnt show enough. On 5/9/08, Quan Zhou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello everyone. I recently develop my App use Wicket1.3.3. It's my first time to use this framework and I feel it's really really a perfect framework for me. My app support both Simplified Chinese , Traditional Chinese, I implement this with Wicket i18n feature. With the load increasing these days, I found my app would become very lag abount every 24 hours ,so that i would only restart it without any choice. when I found the lag, My log records many Exceptions like : after 1 minute the Pagemap null is still locked by: Thread[http-8080-321,5,main], giving up trying to get the page for path xxx I check the JVM status with jstat -gc , It tells that the Heapsize is full even after full GC. My VM paraemter is -Xms2000m -Xmx2000m -XX:MaxNewSize=250m -XX:MaxPermSize=250m My deploy server has 2*CPU and 4G memory, Redhat AS4 OS + tomcat 6.0. There're 2000 sessions on the day while the timeout threshold is 15 minutes. So i dump the whole heapsize with the command jmap -dump:live,format=b,file=3.dump.hprof processid and i truely get a 2G size dump files. I use SAP Memory Analyer to see what're stored in HeapMemory. and I found a strange number of Retained Heap usage: Classname ShallowHeap RetainHeap RetainedHeap% [EMAIL PROTECTED] 16 1,755,070,35287.64% [EMAIL PROTECTED] 48 1,755,070,336 87.69% [EMAIL PROTECTED] 33,554,448 1,755,069,632 87.69% - [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... 24 3928 0.00% - [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... 24 3928 0.00% - [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... 24 3928 0.00% - [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... 24 3928 0.00% - [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... 24 3928 0.00% - [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... 24 3928 0.00% + 2,863,659 more... Is that means that the Localizer Object used most of the heap size? or Is this number normal for Wicket App? I wonder whether I forget to release the memory by my mis-using of i18n feature? Is there any attentions I must pay to when dealing with Localizer? This problem annoys me more the 2 weeks. I really need some help. Thanks . - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Why-Localizer-Retained-so-many-heapsize--tp17142582p17199950.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: persistent sessions in Tomcat
then you really have a serialization problem in your pages On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 10:23 AM, ElSe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks, I tried to check this for wicket examples and it works with default server configuration. This means that there are some error in my application... but I haven't any error messages... ok, I'll continue experiments. Does that message page expired mean that the session is gone? So I have next question: default session timeout for Tomcat is 30 minutes but page expired appears much earlier - even for wicket examples. Why? Johan Compagner wrote: the default config of tomcat already restarts the wicket example sessions just fine for me I havent changed 1 thing about that On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 11:59 AM, ElSe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do you mean tomcat logs? No I don't. Some *.ser files appear in the work\Catalina\localhost\application directory so session is serialized but isn't restored. Do I understand correctly that my assumption is correct and the wicket session must be restored with the tomcat persistent manager? So there must be some error in the configuration of the server or application itself? igor.vaynberg wrote: do you get any serialization errors in your logs, you might be trying to store something non serializable in the wicket component. -igor On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 1:09 AM, ElSe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I'm just started experiments with Wicket so I suppose my question is stupid however I haven't found the answer on the forum. The point was to understand how to organize persistent sessions for the wicket application. It seemed to me that such application should work with the standard Tomcat mechanism transparently as any other servlet. So I have written simple wicket application - just two pages that show sessionid, configured Tomcat persistent manager and started session. Then I restarted the server and tried to pass from one page to another waiting to see the same sessionid. But I have seen page has expired. Should I provide some serialization support in my application or there is some error in my logic or there aren't such possibility and I want something strange(c)? BR -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/persistent-sessions-in-Tomcat-tp17183181p17183181.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/persistent-sessions-in-Tomcat-tp17183181p17205069.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/persistent-sessions-in-Tomcat-tp17183181p17226017.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: Processing a form before page components are created
I take your point, thanks for the pointer. -- From: Eelco Hillenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 1:31 AM To: users@wicket.apache.org Subject: Re: Processing a form before page components are created The reason I want to do this is that my pages are stateless, and I want to process the submitted form before all the components on the page are initialised, incase I need to load different data models, or redirect the request to another page, thus saving unnecessary database calls and component initialisation. At the moment what I am doing is processing the form by directly reading the page parameters in the constructor before I add any components to the page, and then redirecting the request or initializing the page as appropriate (bypassing the use of Form.onSubmit). If you make sure your models/ components work lazily you can avoid database calls being done until the components are actually rendered. Rendering is a separate phase executing after component construction and form handling. And you can let your form just populate a simple bean to avoid database access. I wouldn't worry about the creation of a few components, and you can break of any time with a RestartResponseException or set the next page (without breaking off current processing) using setResponsePage. Eelco - 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: Why Localizer Retained so many heapsize?
getResourceSettings().setLocalizer(new Localizer() {
@Override
public void putIntoCache(final String cacheKey,final String
string) {
if (string != null cacheKey!=null)
super.putIntoCache(cacheKey, string);
}
});
2008/5/14 Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
but what did you do there in that method?
nothing? you dont cache anything anymore?
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 10:29 AM, Quan Zhou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello everyone.
I override Localizer.putIntoCache method. and it really reduce the
heapsize
usage of Localizer.
The application is more stable now although the key remains large.
Hope we can find a way to shorter the key length.
thanks everyone.
2008/5/13 Eirik Rude [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
A soft reference is very common for this type of thing. I know some of
ICU's
resources are stored this way.
Jonathan Locke wrote:
maybe localizer should limit its size or use a soft reference cache?
Johan Compagner wrote:
Can you really see what it holds?
Almost 2G in memory in localizer is extreme... Thats really a lot of
strings..
You could try to read that dump with yourkit if your current one
doesnt show enough.
On 5/9/08, Quan Zhou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello everyone.
I recently develop my App use Wicket1.3.3. It's my first time to
use
this
framework and I feel it's really really a perfect framework for me.
My app support both Simplified Chinese , Traditional Chinese, I
implement
this with Wicket i18n feature.
With the load increasing these days, I found my app would become
very
lag
abount every 24 hours ,so that i would only restart it
without any choice.
when I found the lag, My log records many Exceptions like :
after 1 minute the Pagemap null is still locked by:
Thread[http-8080-321,5,main], giving
up trying to get the page for path xxx
I check the JVM status with jstat -gc , It tells that the Heapsize
is
full
even after full GC.
My VM paraemter is -Xms2000m -Xmx2000m -XX:MaxNewSize=250m
-XX:MaxPermSize=250m
My deploy server has 2*CPU and 4G memory, Redhat AS4 OS + tomcat
6.0.
There're 2000 sessions on the day while the timeout threshold is 15
minutes.
So i dump the whole heapsize with the command jmap
-dump:live,format=b,file=3.dump.hprof processid
and i truely get a 2G size dump files. I use SAP Memory Analyer to
see
what're stored in HeapMemory.
and I found a strange number of Retained Heap usage:
Classname
ShallowHeap
RetainHeap
RetainedHeap%
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
16
1,755,070,35287.64%
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
48 1,755,070,336
87.69%
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
33,554,448
1,755,069,632 87.69%
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
24 3928
0.00%
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
24 3928
0.00%
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
24 3928
0.00%
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
24 3928
0.00%
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
24 3928
0.00%
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
24 3928
0.00%
+ 2,863,659 more...
Is that means that the Localizer Object used most of the heap size?
or Is this number normal for Wicket App?
I wonder whether I forget to release the memory by my mis-using of
i18n
feature?
Is there any attentions I must pay to when dealing with Localizer?
This problem annoys me more the 2 weeks. I really need some help.
Thanks
.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Why-Localizer-Retained-so-many-heapsize--tp17142582p17199950.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: Using generics with some non-generic classes in Wicket
Somewhat related to this thread, when I moved to generics win Wicket 1.4, I
created some utility classes such as:
public class VoidContainer extends WebMarkupContainerlt;Void
public class VoidPanel extends Panellt;Void
public class StringLabel extends Labellt;String
public class IntegerModel extends Modellt;Integer
public class StringModel extends Modellt;String
public class DateModel extends Modellt;Date
public class DoubleModel extends Modellt;Double
And so on. This made my wicket code cleaner and easier to use. I think the
Wicket 1.4 generics implementation is headed in the right direction. It was
a pain at first because I had to parameterize everything, but creating
convenience classes like this made it easier.
I'm thinking about creating a patch with a suite of these types of classes
because I think users will want something like this.
-Doug
Johan Compagner wrote:
The problem is that wicket needs an annotation
genericsOptional
so that all the warnings about raw types are gone.
A component only has to be generic if you use the IModel constructor or
call
getModel(), getModelObject() methods..
for the rest it is not really needed
johan
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 9:28 AM, Sebastiaan van Erk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
My post kind of missed the point, I shouldn't post when I'm already half
asleep. :-)
Obviously MarkupContainer satisfies the MarkupContainer? in a
method argument, so it accepts the raw type. However, it generates a
warning
because the method says it's generified, so you should be using the
generic
type.
Johan Compagner wrote:
I dont care, because i cant do any thing with the ? The only thing it
enforces is that it must now be a generic class which is annoying. Not
to mention that in that area eclipse and javac accept different
things
The reason it warns you to use generics when generics are wanted is
because Sun wants to be able to make it *required* (in a future release)
to
use generics where generics are wanted; at least, so I read... I think in
the real world they wouldn't dare to do this because it would piss off so
many users and break so much stuff. :-)
But the idea is that if something is generified you should be using a
type
parameter, and using a raw type is *purely* for backwards compatibility
with
legacy code.
Regards,
Sebastiaan
So or we in wicket dont use ? any where and have supress warning
everywhere for that or we do use it and then suddenly it is in my eyes
restricted to much.
I don't understand
On 5/14/08, Sebastiaan van Erk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Johan Compagner wrote:
yes thats the reason
you are calling the method add with a generified component but that
container itself is not generified
i dont like this about generics expecially the onces like this:
add(MarkupContainer? container)
then suddenly a none generified component cant be added...
thats really stupid ? should mean anything.. including none
generics
No, that's not correct. For example, List? is much more restrictive
than a raw List (which is a List). To a raw list you can add
an
instance of any type whatever, i.e., list.add(new Object()). But in
List? the ? is a wildcard which says it could be any type there,
i.e.,
it could be a ListInteger. But you can't add a new Object() to a
ListInteger!
Thus MarkupContainer? means MarkupContainer parameterized by some
unknown type, and *not* MarkupContainer parameterized by Object,
which
is what the raw type means.
Regards,
Sebastiaan
johan
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 5:55 PM, Stefan Simik
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I have one idea,
the reason of the warnigs is, that parent of AjaxPagingNavigator
is
PagingNavigator,
which has parent Panel --- that is not parameterized.
The same problem is with LoopItem, which extends the
WebMarkupContainer --- that is not parameterized.
? could this be the reason ?
Stefan Simik wrote:
Mhmm, it is meaningful ;) I will know in future, thx
One of the last occuring warning is, when working with
MarkupContainer#add(...) or #addOrReplace(...) method.
Example: I have a simple AjaxPagingNavigator, to which I add a
simple
ListView
---
ListViewInteger menu = new ListViewInteger(id, numbers){
//populate metods
}
add(menu);//warning here
The warning says:
Type safety: The method add(Component...) belongs to the raw
type
MarkupContainer.
References to generic type MarkupContainerT should be
parameterized
I cannot find out, what's the warning reason, because ListView
self is
parameterized.
RE: Using generics with some non-generic classes in Wicket
imho, that seems like that adds a lot of unnecessary code. One of the
nice things about Wicket is that it keeps the bloat to a minimum.
-Original Message-
From: Doug Donohoe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 8:21 AM
To: users@wicket.apache.org
Subject: Re: Using generics with some non-generic classes in Wicket
Somewhat related to this thread, when I moved to generics win Wicket
1.4, I created some utility classes such as:
public class VoidContainer extends WebMarkupContainerlt;Void public
class VoidPanel extends Panellt;Void public class StringLabel extends
Labellt;String
public class IntegerModel extends Modellt;Integer public class
StringModel extends Modellt;String public class DateModel extends
Modellt;Date public class DoubleModel extends Modellt;Double
And so on. This made my wicket code cleaner and easier to use. I think
the Wicket 1.4 generics implementation is headed in the right direction.
It was a pain at first because I had to parameterize everything, but
creating convenience classes like this made it easier.
I'm thinking about creating a patch with a suite of these types of
classes because I think users will want something like this.
-Doug
Johan Compagner wrote:
The problem is that wicket needs an annotation
genericsOptional
so that all the warnings about raw types are gone.
A component only has to be generic if you use the IModel constructor
or call getModel(), getModelObject() methods..
for the rest it is not really needed
johan
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 9:28 AM, Sebastiaan van Erk
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
My post kind of missed the point, I shouldn't post when I'm already
half asleep. :-)
Obviously MarkupContainer satisfies the MarkupContainer? in a
method argument, so it accepts the raw type. However, it generates a
warning because the method says it's generified, so you should be
using the generic type.
Johan Compagner wrote:
I dont care, because i cant do any thing with the ? The only thing
it enforces is that it must now be a generic class which is
annoying. Not to mention that in that area eclipse and javac accept
different things
The reason it warns you to use generics when generics are wanted is
because Sun wants to be able to make it *required* (in a future
release) to use generics where generics are wanted; at least, so I
read... I think in the real world they wouldn't dare to do this
because it would piss off so many users and break so much stuff. :-)
But the idea is that if something is generified you should be using a
type parameter, and using a raw type is *purely* for backwards
compatibility with legacy code.
Regards,
Sebastiaan
So or we in wicket dont use ? any where and have supress warning
everywhere for that or we do use it and then suddenly it is in my
eyes restricted to much.
I don't understand
On 5/14/08, Sebastiaan van Erk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Johan Compagner wrote:
yes thats the reason
you are calling the method add with a generified component but
that container itself is not generified
i dont like this about generics expecially the onces like this:
add(MarkupContainer? container)
then suddenly a none generified component cant be added...
thats really stupid ? should mean anything.. including none
generics
No, that's not correct. For example, List? is much more
restrictive than a raw List (which is a List). To a raw list you
can add an instance of any type whatever, i.e., list.add(new
Object()). But in List? the ? is a wildcard which says it could
be any type there, i.e., it could be a ListInteger. But you
can't add a new Object() to a ListInteger!
Thus MarkupContainer? means MarkupContainer parameterized by
some unknown type, and *not* MarkupContainer parameterized by
Object, which is what the raw type means.
Regards,
Sebastiaan
johan
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 5:55 PM, Stefan Simik
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I have one idea,
the reason of the warnigs is, that parent of
AjaxPagingNavigator is PagingNavigator, which has parent
Panel --- that is not parameterized.
The same problem is with LoopItem, which extends the
WebMarkupContainer --- that is not parameterized.
? could this be the reason ?
Stefan Simik wrote:
Mhmm, it is meaningful ;) I will know in future, thx
One of the last occuring warning is, when working with
MarkupContainer#add(...) or #addOrReplace(...) method.
Example: I have a simple AjaxPagingNavigator, to which I
add a simple ListView
-
--
ListViewInteger menu = new ListViewInteger(id,
numbers){
//populate metods
}
add(menu);
Re: overriding getAssociatedMarkupStream
Hi,
I tried implementing the IMarkupResourceStreamProvider in my web page:
public IResourceStream getMarkupResourceStream(MarkupContainer
container,
Class containerClass) {
if (html != null) {
StringResourceStream myhtml = new StringResourceStream(new
StringBuilder(html));
MarkupResourceStream m = new MarkupResourceStream(myhtml);
return m;
} else {
final DefaultMarkupResourceStreamProvider
markupResourceStreamProvider =
new DefaultMarkupResourceStreamProvider();
return
markupResourceStreamProvider.getMarkupResourceStream(container,
containerClass);
}
}
(html is a class member that may or may not be available)
It did not work:
1. The Cache keeps the last html markup, so if I open this page once WITH
html != null I get what I want (but with the same problem. look at next
note). If then I open the page and the html IS null, the cache returns the
earlier page. So this approach is no good.
2. In any case, HeaderContributers that are on components that in the page
are not added to the output markup.
Are the 2 lines:
StringResourceStream myhtml = new StringResourceStream(new
StringBuilder(html));
MarkupResourceStream m = new MarkupResourceStream(myhtml);
The problem ?
Thanks
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 6:41 AM, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
you shouldnt be overriding that method, try implementing
IMarkupResourceStreamProvider instead.
-igor
On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 11:20 PM, Eyal Golan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ok, maybe I wasn't clear enough.
The simple question is, why the add(HeaderContributor.forCss...));
is not added to the output markup when I override
getAssociatedMarkupStream?
Thanks
On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 4:08 PM, Eyal Golan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
We have this method:
@Override
public MarkupStream getAssociatedMarkupStream(final boolean
throwException)
{
if(html != null) {
return GUIUtis.getMarkupStream(this, html);
}
return super.getAssociatedMarkupStream(throwException);
}
and:
static public MarkupStream getMarkupStream(Page page,String
htmlText){
try
{
StringResourceStream myhtml = new StringResourceStream(new
StringBuilder(htmlText));
MarkupResourceStream m = new MarkupResourceStream(myhtml);
Markup myMarkup =
page.getApplication().getMarkupSettings().getMarkupParserFactory().newMarkupParser(m).parse();
MarkupStream markupStream = new MarkupStream(myMarkup);
return markupStream;
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
throw new RuntimeException(Fail to parse
markup:\n+htmlText);
}
}
The problem:
When the html is not null (and we enter GUIUtis.getMarkupStream),
css that where added using HeaderContributer are not added to the
output
HTML markup.
I have something like this in a component:
add(HeaderContributor.forCss(EurekifyButton.class,
EurekifyButton.css));
The css is missing.
I can't change the usage of getAssociatedMarkupStream to use variation
or
something like this.
any thought?
--
Eyal Golan
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Visit: http://jvdrums.sourceforge.net/
--
Eyal Golan
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Visit: http://jvdrums.sourceforge.net/
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Eyal Golan
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Visit: http://jvdrums.sourceforge.net/
Re: Using generics with some non-generic classes in Wicket
I can save you the trouble of generating the patch. I don't want FooBar where Foo iterates over all the types in Java and Bar iterates over all the Components, Behaviors, Sessions, Requests, Providers in Wicket. Totally unnecessary and completely negates the idea of generics. Martijn On 5/14/08, Doug Donohoe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Somewhat related to this thread, when I moved to generics win Wicket 1.4, I created some utility classes such as: public class VoidContainer extends WebMarkupContainerlt;Void public class VoidPanel extends Panellt;Void public class StringLabel extends Labellt;String public class IntegerModel extends Modellt;Integer public class StringModel extends Modellt;String public class DateModel extends Modellt;Date public class DoubleModel extends Modellt;Double And so on. This made my wicket code cleaner and easier to use. I think the Wicket 1.4 generics implementation is headed in the right direction. It was a pain at first because I had to parameterize everything, but creating convenience classes like this made it easier. I'm thinking about creating a patch with a suite of these types of classes because I think users will want something like this. -Doug Johan Compagner wrote: The problem is that wicket needs an annotation genericsOptional so that all the warnings about raw types are gone. A component only has to be generic if you use the IModel constructor or call getModel(), getModelObject() methods.. for the rest it is not really needed johan On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 9:28 AM, Sebastiaan van Erk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My post kind of missed the point, I shouldn't post when I'm already half asleep. :-) Obviously MarkupContainer satisfies the MarkupContainer? in a method argument, so it accepts the raw type. However, it generates a warning because the method says it's generified, so you should be using the generic type. Johan Compagner wrote: I dont care, because i cant do any thing with the ? The only thing it enforces is that it must now be a generic class which is annoying. Not to mention that in that area eclipse and javac accept different things The reason it warns you to use generics when generics are wanted is because Sun wants to be able to make it *required* (in a future release) to use generics where generics are wanted; at least, so I read... I think in the real world they wouldn't dare to do this because it would piss off so many users and break so much stuff. :-) But the idea is that if something is generified you should be using a type parameter, and using a raw type is *purely* for backwards compatibility with legacy code. Regards, Sebastiaan So or we in wicket dont use ? any where and have supress warning everywhere for that or we do use it and then suddenly it is in my eyes restricted to much. I don't understand On 5/14/08, Sebastiaan van Erk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Johan Compagner wrote: yes thats the reason you are calling the method add with a generified component but that container itself is not generified i dont like this about generics expecially the onces like this: add(MarkupContainer? container) then suddenly a none generified component cant be added... thats really stupid ? should mean anything.. including none generics No, that's not correct. For example, List? is much more restrictive than a raw List (which is a List). To a raw list you can add an instance of any type whatever, i.e., list.add(new Object()). But in List? the ? is a wildcard which says it could be any type there, i.e., it could be a ListInteger. But you can't add a new Object() to a ListInteger! Thus MarkupContainer? means MarkupContainer parameterized by some unknown type, and *not* MarkupContainer parameterized by Object, which is what the raw type means. Regards, Sebastiaan johan On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 5:55 PM, Stefan Simik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have one idea, the reason of the warnigs is, that parent of AjaxPagingNavigator is PagingNavigator, which has parent Panel --- that is not parameterized. The same problem is with LoopItem, which extends the WebMarkupContainer --- that is not parameterized. ? could this be the reason ? Stefan Simik wrote: Mhmm, it is meaningful ;) I will know in future, thx One of the last occuring warning is, when working with MarkupContainer#add(...) or #addOrReplace(...) method. Example: I have a simple
Re: Why Localizer Retained so many heapsize?
ok so you dont store the tested cacheKey 's that returned null..
so that could result in a bit slower access because it is tried to resolve
everytime
I do think that my fix for not including the page is solving your real mem
leak problem
johan
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 2:03 PM, Quan Zhou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
getResourceSettings().setLocalizer(new Localizer() {
@Override
public void putIntoCache(final String cacheKey,final String
string) {
if (string != null cacheKey!=null)
super.putIntoCache(cacheKey, string);
}
});
2008/5/14 Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
but what did you do there in that method?
nothing? you dont cache anything anymore?
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 10:29 AM, Quan Zhou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hello everyone.
I override Localizer.putIntoCache method. and it really reduce the
heapsize
usage of Localizer.
The application is more stable now although the key remains large.
Hope we can find a way to shorter the key length.
thanks everyone.
2008/5/13 Eirik Rude [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
A soft reference is very common for this type of thing. I know some
of
ICU's
resources are stored this way.
Jonathan Locke wrote:
maybe localizer should limit its size or use a soft reference
cache?
Johan Compagner wrote:
Can you really see what it holds?
Almost 2G in memory in localizer is extreme... Thats really a lot
of
strings..
You could try to read that dump with yourkit if your current one
doesnt show enough.
On 5/9/08, Quan Zhou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello everyone.
I recently develop my App use Wicket1.3.3. It's my first time to
use
this
framework and I feel it's really really a perfect framework for
me.
My app support both Simplified Chinese , Traditional Chinese, I
implement
this with Wicket i18n feature.
With the load increasing these days, I found my app would become
very
lag
abount every 24 hours ,so that i would only restart it
without any choice.
when I found the lag, My log records many Exceptions like :
after 1 minute the Pagemap null is still locked by:
Thread[http-8080-321,5,main], giving
up trying to get the page for path xxx
I check the JVM status with jstat -gc , It tells that the
Heapsize
is
full
even after full GC.
My VM paraemter is -Xms2000m -Xmx2000m -XX:MaxNewSize=250m
-XX:MaxPermSize=250m
My deploy server has 2*CPU and 4G memory, Redhat AS4 OS + tomcat
6.0.
There're 2000 sessions on the day while the timeout threshold is
15
minutes.
So i dump the whole heapsize with the command jmap
-dump:live,format=b,file=3.dump.hprof processid
and i truely get a 2G size dump files. I use SAP Memory Analyer
to
see
what're stored in HeapMemory.
and I found a strange number of Retained Heap usage:
Classname
ShallowHeap
RetainHeap
RetainedHeap%
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
16
1,755,070,35287.64%
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
48 1,755,070,336
87.69%
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
33,554,448
1,755,069,632 87.69%
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
24 3928
0.00%
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
24 3928
0.00%
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
24 3928
0.00%
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
24 3928
0.00%
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
24 3928
0.00%
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
24 3928
0.00%
+ 2,863,659 more...
Is that means that the Localizer Object used most of the heap
size?
or Is this number normal for Wicket App?
I wonder whether I forget to release the memory by my mis-using
of
i18n
feature?
Is there any attentions I must pay to when dealing with
Localizer?
This problem annoys me more the 2 weeks. I really need some
help.
Thanks
.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Why-Localizer-Retained-so-many-heapsize--tp17142582p17199950.html
Sent from the Wicket - User
hi, does anybody know, in wicket, how to make componete can be drap and drop
hi, does anybody know, in wicket, how to make componete can be drap and drop just like the ajax debug windows -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/hi%2C-does-anybody-know%2C-in-wicket%2C-how-to-make-componete-can-be-drap-and-drop-tp17230831p17230831.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: hi, does anybody know, in wicket, how to make componete can be drap and drop
See scriptaculous integration on wicket-stuff. It has drag'n drop capabilities, though I haven't used it myself. Probably wicketstuff-yui, wicketstuff-jquery and wicketstuff-dojo have the same capabilities. Martijn On 5/14/08, shrimpywu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: hi, does anybody know, in wicket, how to make componete can be drap and drop just like the ajax debug windows -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/hi%2C-does-anybody-know%2C-in-wicket%2C-how-to-make-componete-can-be-drap-and-drop-tp17230831p17230831.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] -- Buy Wicket in Action: http://manning.com/dashorst Apache Wicket 1.3.3 is released Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.3 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FYI: new wicket site
cool. great stuff On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 11:36 AM, lars vonk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all, A new Wicket site is born! It's a Dutch site on which you can search for day trips and such. See: www.eropuit.nl. Thanks to the user- and dev-group for answering any questions we had during the process. Lars -- Eyal Golan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit: http://jvdrums.sourceforge.net/
Quickstart broken for 1.4-m1
Hi, If I do: mvn archetype:create -DarchetypeGroupId=org.apache.wicket -DarchetypeArtifactId=wicket-archetype-quickstart -DarchetypeVersion=1.4-m1 -DgroupId=nl.grons -DartifactId=i18ntest as generated by the quickstart page (http://wicket.apache.org/quickstart.html), I get Wicket version 1.3-SNAPSHOT in the pom. Of course that should be 1.4-m1. Should I create a Jira issue? Regards, Erik. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Quickstart broken for 1.4-m1
It is already fixed for 1.4-m2. Martijn On 5/14/08, Erik van Oosten [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, If I do: mvn archetype:create -DarchetypeGroupId=org.apache.wicket -DarchetypeArtifactId=wicket-archetype-quickstart -DarchetypeVersion=1.4-m1 -DgroupId=nl.grons -DartifactId=i18ntest as generated by the quickstart page (http://wicket.apache.org/quickstart.html), I get Wicket version 1.3-SNAPSHOT in the pom. Of course that should be 1.4-m1. Should I create a Jira issue? Regards, Erik. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Buy Wicket in Action: http://manning.com/dashorst Apache Wicket 1.3.3 is released Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.3 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FYI: new wicket site
Looks great! Martijn On 5/14/08, lars vonk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all, A new Wicket site is born! It's a Dutch site on which you can search for day trips and such. See: www.eropuit.nl. Thanks to the user- and dev-group for answering any questions we had during the process. Lars -- Buy Wicket in Action: http://manning.com/dashorst Apache Wicket 1.3.3 is released Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.3 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Using generics with some non-generic classes in Wicket
Let me outline what I believe the benefits are. For example: add(new LabelString(tournamentName, tournament.getName())); add(new LabelString(hostName, game.getHostPlayer())); row.add(new AttributeModifier(class, true, new ModelString(row.getIndex() % 2 == 0 ? odd : even))); add(new StringLabel(tournamentName, tournament.getName())); add(new StringLabel(hostName, game.getHostPlayer())); row.add(new AttributeModifier(class, true, new StringModel(row.getIndex() % 2 == 0 ? odd : even))); Sure, it seems like a small difference and a saving of two characters, but here is what I believe are the benefits of doing this: 1) I can more easily use the features of my IDE such as auto-completion 2) Find Usages is more accurate (at least in IntelliJ, where I'm not aware of a find-usages that scopes to a particular generic type) 3) Let's face it, Generics clutters up your code and makes it harder to read. This simplifies things a bit. In answer to Martijn's assumption (in a separate post) that I was going to iterate over all java types and all wicket types: that is an incorrect assumption. Obviously, I would want to pick the most common use cases and seek feedback from the community. Let us not dismiss it outright. I believe this is a valid topic of conversation. Generics are new to Wicket and still unused by many Java APIs and likely new to many programmers. I can tell you that using classes such as this made it much quicker and easier to remove all the warnings that showed up in my code when I migrated to 1.4. It seems easier to replace common usage from before (new Label(...)) with new StringLabel(...) rather than new LabelString (even typing that now was more difficult). In any case, there may be some complaining about the extensive use of Generics in 1.4 once it is released. This may make it easier to transition. Maybe not. At least let's be open to discussing it. Finally, in answer to the point about negating the point of generics, I respectfully disagree. One major point of generics is to avoid code duplication of boilerplate code. It it weren't for the need to create constructors, there wouldn't be any duplicated code. I agree that it is a fine balance to strike, but there are competing needs of readability and maintainability. -Doug Hoover, William wrote: imho, that seems like that adds a lot of unnecessary code. One of the nice things about Wicket is that it keeps the bloat to a minimum. -Original Message- From: Doug Donohoe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 8:21 AM To: users@wicket.apache.org Subject: Re: Using generics with some non-generic classes in Wicket Somewhat related to this thread, when I moved to generics win Wicket 1.4, I created some utility classes such as: public class VoidContainer extends WebMarkupContainerlt;Void public class VoidPanel extends Panellt;Void public class StringLabel extends Labellt;String public class IntegerModel extends Modellt;Integer public class StringModel extends Modellt;String public class DateModel extends Modellt;Date public class DoubleModel extends Modellt;Double And so on. This made my wicket code cleaner and easier to use. I think the Wicket 1.4 generics implementation is headed in the right direction. It was a pain at first because I had to parameterize everything, but creating convenience classes like this made it easier. I'm thinking about creating a patch with a suite of these types of classes because I think users will want something like this. -Doug Johan Compagner wrote: The problem is that wicket needs an annotation genericsOptional so that all the warnings about raw types are gone. A component only has to be generic if you use the IModel constructor or call getModel(), getModelObject() methods.. for the rest it is not really needed johan On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 9:28 AM, Sebastiaan van Erk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My post kind of missed the point, I shouldn't post when I'm already half asleep. :-) Obviously MarkupContainer satisfies the MarkupContainer? in a method argument, so it accepts the raw type. However, it generates a warning because the method says it's generified, so you should be using the generic type. Johan Compagner wrote: I dont care, because i cant do any thing with the ? The only thing it enforces is that it must now be a generic class which is annoying. Not to mention that in that area eclipse and javac accept different things The reason it warns you to use generics when generics are wanted is because Sun wants to be able to make it *required* (in a future release) to use generics where generics are wanted; at least, so I read... I think in the real world they wouldn't dare to do this because it would piss off so many users and break so much stuff. :-) But the idea is that if something is generified you should be using a type parameter, and using a raw type
Re: Using generics with some non-generic classes in Wicket
StringModel looks ambigious to me, will it extend - LoadableDetachableModel - IModel - Model - AbstractReadOnlyModel - ??? Am 14.05.2008 um 15:47 schrieb Doug Donohoe: Let me outline what I believe the benefits are. For example: add(new LabelString(tournamentName, tournament.getName())); add(new LabelString(hostName, game.getHostPlayer())); row.add(new AttributeModifier(class, true, new ModelString(row.getIndex() % 2 == 0 ? odd : even))); add(new StringLabel(tournamentName, tournament.getName())); add(new StringLabel(hostName, game.getHostPlayer())); row.add(new AttributeModifier(class, true, new StringModel(row.getIndex() % 2 == 0 ? odd : even))); Sure, it seems like a small difference and a saving of two characters, but here is what I believe are the benefits of doing this: 1) I can more easily use the features of my IDE such as auto- completion 2) Find Usages is more accurate (at least in IntelliJ, where I'm not aware of a find-usages that scopes to a particular generic type) 3) Let's face it, Generics clutters up your code and makes it harder to read. This simplifies things a bit. In answer to Martijn's assumption (in a separate post) that I was going to iterate over all java types and all wicket types: that is an incorrect assumption. Obviously, I would want to pick the most common use cases and seek feedback from the community. Let us not dismiss it outright. I believe this is a valid topic of conversation. Generics are new to Wicket and still unused by many Java APIs and likely new to many programmers. I can tell you that using classes such as this made it much quicker and easier to remove all the warnings that showed up in my code when I migrated to 1.4. It seems easier to replace common usage from before (new Label(...)) with new StringLabel(...) rather than new LabelString (even typing that now was more difficult). In any case, there may be some complaining about the extensive use of Generics in 1.4 once it is released. This may make it easier to transition. Maybe not. At least let's be open to discussing it. Finally, in answer to the point about negating the point of generics, I respectfully disagree. One major point of generics is to avoid code duplication of boilerplate code. It it weren't for the need to create constructors, there wouldn't be any duplicated code. I agree that it is a fine balance to strike, but there are competing needs of readability and maintainability. -Doug Hoover, William wrote: imho, that seems like that adds a lot of unnecessary code. One of the nice things about Wicket is that it keeps the bloat to a minimum. -Original Message- From: Doug Donohoe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 8:21 AM To: users@wicket.apache.org Subject: Re: Using generics with some non-generic classes in Wicket Somewhat related to this thread, when I moved to generics win Wicket 1.4, I created some utility classes such as: public class VoidContainer extends WebMarkupContainerlt;Void public class VoidPanel extends Panellt;Void public class StringLabel extends Labellt;String public class IntegerModel extends Modellt;Integer public class StringModel extends Modellt;String public class DateModel extends Modellt;Date public class DoubleModel extends Modellt;Double And so on. This made my wicket code cleaner and easier to use. I think the Wicket 1.4 generics implementation is headed in the right direction. It was a pain at first because I had to parameterize everything, but creating convenience classes like this made it easier. I'm thinking about creating a patch with a suite of these types of classes because I think users will want something like this. -Doug Johan Compagner wrote: The problem is that wicket needs an annotation genericsOptional so that all the warnings about raw types are gone. A component only has to be generic if you use the IModel constructor or call getModel(), getModelObject() methods.. for the rest it is not really needed johan On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 9:28 AM, Sebastiaan van Erk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My post kind of missed the point, I shouldn't post when I'm already half asleep. :-) Obviously MarkupContainer satisfies the MarkupContainer? in a method argument, so it accepts the raw type. However, it generates a warning because the method says it's generified, so you should be using the generic type. Johan Compagner wrote: I dont care, because i cant do any thing with the ? The only thing it enforces is that it must now be a generic class which is annoying. Not to mention that in that area eclipse and javac accept different things The reason it warns you to use generics when generics are wanted is because Sun wants to be able to make it *required* (in a future release) to use generics where generics are wanted; at least, so I read... I think in the real world they wouldn't dare to do this because it would
Re: Using generics with some non-generic classes in Wicket
From my original post on this topic: public class StringModel extends ModelString -Doug Peter Ertl wrote: StringModel looks ambigious to me, will it extend - LoadableDetachableModel - IModel - Model - AbstractReadOnlyModel - ??? Am 14.05.2008 um 15:47 schrieb Doug Donohoe: Let me outline what I believe the benefits are. For example: add(new LabelString(tournamentName, tournament.getName())); add(new LabelString(hostName, game.getHostPlayer())); row.add(new AttributeModifier(class, true, new ModelString(row.getIndex() % 2 == 0 ? odd : even))); add(new StringLabel(tournamentName, tournament.getName())); add(new StringLabel(hostName, game.getHostPlayer())); row.add(new AttributeModifier(class, true, new StringModel(row.getIndex() % 2 == 0 ? odd : even))); Sure, it seems like a small difference and a saving of two characters, but here is what I believe are the benefits of doing this: 1) I can more easily use the features of my IDE such as auto- completion 2) Find Usages is more accurate (at least in IntelliJ, where I'm not aware of a find-usages that scopes to a particular generic type) 3) Let's face it, Generics clutters up your code and makes it harder to read. This simplifies things a bit. In answer to Martijn's assumption (in a separate post) that I was going to iterate over all java types and all wicket types: that is an incorrect assumption. Obviously, I would want to pick the most common use cases and seek feedback from the community. Let us not dismiss it outright. I believe this is a valid topic of conversation. Generics are new to Wicket and still unused by many Java APIs and likely new to many programmers. I can tell you that using classes such as this made it much quicker and easier to remove all the warnings that showed up in my code when I migrated to 1.4. It seems easier to replace common usage from before (new Label(...)) with new StringLabel(...) rather than new LabelString (even typing that now was more difficult). In any case, there may be some complaining about the extensive use of Generics in 1.4 once it is released. This may make it easier to transition. Maybe not. At least let's be open to discussing it. Finally, in answer to the point about negating the point of generics, I respectfully disagree. One major point of generics is to avoid code duplication of boilerplate code. It it weren't for the need to create constructors, there wouldn't be any duplicated code. I agree that it is a fine balance to strike, but there are competing needs of readability and maintainability. -Doug Hoover, William wrote: imho, that seems like that adds a lot of unnecessary code. One of the nice things about Wicket is that it keeps the bloat to a minimum. -Original Message- From: Doug Donohoe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 8:21 AM To: users@wicket.apache.org Subject: Re: Using generics with some non-generic classes in Wicket Somewhat related to this thread, when I moved to generics win Wicket 1.4, I created some utility classes such as: public class VoidContainer extends WebMarkupContainerlt;Void public class VoidPanel extends Panellt;Void public class StringLabel extends Labellt;String public class IntegerModel extends Modellt;Integer public class StringModel extends Modellt;String public class DateModel extends Modellt;Date public class DoubleModel extends Modellt;Double And so on. This made my wicket code cleaner and easier to use. I think the Wicket 1.4 generics implementation is headed in the right direction. It was a pain at first because I had to parameterize everything, but creating convenience classes like this made it easier. I'm thinking about creating a patch with a suite of these types of classes because I think users will want something like this. -Doug Johan Compagner wrote: The problem is that wicket needs an annotation genericsOptional so that all the warnings about raw types are gone. A component only has to be generic if you use the IModel constructor or call getModel(), getModelObject() methods.. for the rest it is not really needed johan On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 9:28 AM, Sebastiaan van Erk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My post kind of missed the point, I shouldn't post when I'm already half asleep. :-) Obviously MarkupContainer satisfies the MarkupContainer? in a method argument, so it accepts the raw type. However, it generates a warning because the method says it's generified, so you should be using the generic type. Johan Compagner wrote: I dont care, because i cant do any thing with the ? The only thing it enforces is that it must now be a generic class which is annoying. Not to mention that in that area eclipse and javac accept different things The reason it warns you to use generics when generics are
Re: overriding getAssociatedMarkupStream
if you do not want the markup to be cached you have to also implement
IMarkupCacheKeyProvider. returning null from getcachekey will prevent
wicket from caching the markup.
-igor
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 5:42 AM, Eyal Golan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I tried implementing the IMarkupResourceStreamProvider in my web page:
public IResourceStream getMarkupResourceStream(MarkupContainer
container,
Class containerClass) {
if (html != null) {
StringResourceStream myhtml = new StringResourceStream(new
StringBuilder(html));
MarkupResourceStream m = new MarkupResourceStream(myhtml);
return m;
} else {
final DefaultMarkupResourceStreamProvider
markupResourceStreamProvider =
new DefaultMarkupResourceStreamProvider();
return
markupResourceStreamProvider.getMarkupResourceStream(container,
containerClass);
}
}
(html is a class member that may or may not be available)
It did not work:
1. The Cache keeps the last html markup, so if I open this page once WITH
html != null I get what I want (but with the same problem. look at next
note). If then I open the page and the html IS null, the cache returns the
earlier page. So this approach is no good.
2. In any case, HeaderContributers that are on components that in the page
are not added to the output markup.
Are the 2 lines:
StringResourceStream myhtml = new StringResourceStream(new
StringBuilder(html));
MarkupResourceStream m = new MarkupResourceStream(myhtml);
The problem ?
Thanks
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 6:41 AM, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
you shouldnt be overriding that method, try implementing
IMarkupResourceStreamProvider instead.
-igor
On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 11:20 PM, Eyal Golan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ok, maybe I wasn't clear enough.
The simple question is, why the add(HeaderContributor.forCss...));
is not added to the output markup when I override
getAssociatedMarkupStream?
Thanks
On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 4:08 PM, Eyal Golan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
We have this method:
@Override
public MarkupStream getAssociatedMarkupStream(final boolean
throwException)
{
if(html != null) {
return GUIUtis.getMarkupStream(this, html);
}
return super.getAssociatedMarkupStream(throwException);
}
and:
static public MarkupStream getMarkupStream(Page page,String
htmlText){
try
{
StringResourceStream myhtml = new StringResourceStream(new
StringBuilder(htmlText));
MarkupResourceStream m = new MarkupResourceStream(myhtml);
Markup myMarkup =
page.getApplication().getMarkupSettings().getMarkupParserFactory().newMarkupParser(m).parse();
MarkupStream markupStream = new MarkupStream(myMarkup);
return markupStream;
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
throw new RuntimeException(Fail to parse
markup:\n+htmlText);
}
}
The problem:
When the html is not null (and we enter GUIUtis.getMarkupStream),
css that where added using HeaderContributer are not added to the
output
HTML markup.
I have something like this in a component:
add(HeaderContributor.forCss(EurekifyButton.class,
EurekifyButton.css));
The css is missing.
I can't change the usage of getAssociatedMarkupStream to use variation
or
something like this.
any thought?
--
Eyal Golan
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Visit: http://jvdrums.sourceforge.net/
--
Eyal Golan
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Visit: http://jvdrums.sourceforge.net/
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Eyal Golan
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Visit: http://jvdrums.sourceforge.net/
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Using generics with some non-generic classes in Wicket
Great, it work without warnings now ;)
Joham, could you please change the following class too ?
file: Loop.java
line:53
from: LoopItem extends WebMarkupContainer
to: LoopItem extends WebMarkupContainerInteger
thx ;)
Stefan
Johan Compagner wrote:
i already did the commit just yet..
i did make them all because i think people generally dont want to
generify them anyway (use the model object)
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 9:48 PM, Stefan Simik [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
please, and will be these classes later generified ?
Or should I make a RFE, or can I help anyway-for example attach a patch ?
I love your work and Wicket, so I do my best, to make it better ;)
Stefan Simik
Johan Compagner wrote:
yes thats the reason
you are calling the method add with a generified component but that
container itself is not generified
i dont like this about generics expecially the onces like this:
add(MarkupContainer? container)
then suddenly a none generified component cant be added...
thats really stupid ? should mean anything.. including none generics
johan
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 5:55 PM, Stefan Simik [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I have one idea,
the reason of the warnigs is, that parent of AjaxPagingNavigator is
PagingNavigator,
which has parent Panel --- that is not parameterized.
The same problem is with LoopItem, which extends the
WebMarkupContainer --- that is not parameterized.
? could this be the reason ?
Stefan Simik wrote:
Mhmm, it is meaningful ;) I will know in future, thx
One of the last occuring warning is, when working with
MarkupContainer#add(...) or #addOrReplace(...) method.
Example: I have a simple AjaxPagingNavigator, to which I add a
simple
ListView
---
ListViewInteger menu = new ListViewInteger(id, numbers){
//populate metods
}
add(menu);//warning here
The warning says:
Type safety: The method add(Component...) belongs to the raw type
MarkupContainer.
References to generic type MarkupContainerT should be
parameterized
I cannot find out, what's the warning reason, because ListView self
is
parameterized.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Using-generics-with-some-non-generic-classes-in-Wicket-tp17208928p17212015.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/Using-generics-with-some-non-generic-classes-in-Wicket-1.4M1-tp17208928p17216869.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/Using-generics-with-some-non-generic-classes-in-Wicket-1.4M1-tp17208928p17233011.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]
WicketStuff Dojo Tooltip - Question
I used WicketStuff Dojo Tooltip in my one page and it works fine. Right
now the tooltip displays on mouseover event. Is there anyway I can
display it on onClick event?
On my other page I have a link which I am hiding/showing through ajax
update (target.addComponent(..)) based on some condition. In this case
the tooltip is not being displayed.
Do I need to do anything else for that? Please see code below.
-
JAVA Code
final Label myLinkComponent= new Label(link,
objectiveDescLabelModel) {
public boolean isVisible() {
return true or false based on
condition;
}
};
final MyPanel myPanel = new MyPanel (panel-id,
objectiveDescLabelModel, new LoadableDetachableModel() {
private static final long serialVersionUID = 1L;
protected final Object load() {
return Dynamic Tooltip;
}
});
DojoTooltip tooltip = new DojoTooltip(tooltip,
myLinkComponent);
tooltip.add(myPanel);
...
add(myLinkComponent);
add(tooltip);
-
HTML Code
a wicket:id=link href=javascript:void(0);/a
span wicket:id=tooltipspan
wicket:id=panel-id/span/span
Thanks,
Sanjay Patel
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Wrong page is rendered
Hi folks,
Being in the process of adding a wicket based administration console to an
existing struts based application, I have been able to set up some simple
pages. Unittesting these pages works fines. Also using 'mvn jetty:run'
starts the wicket based part just fine. I can click through the application
and everything works as expected.
However when I integrate (using mvn war overlay) the wicket part inside the
existing struts application something weird is happening. I can bring up de
first page (homepage) in the wicket based administration console.
Unfortunately the links to other wicket based pages only result in a refresh
of the homepage.
I wonder if this behaviour has something to do with how I added the
administration console to the existing web application. Here are the
snippets of what I have added to my web.xml.
... snip ...
filter
filter-namewicket.bvh-console/filter-name
filter-classorg.apache.wicket.protocol.http.WicketFilter/filter-class
init-param
param-nameapplicationClassName/param-name
param-valuenl.politie.bvh.console.WicketApplication/param-value
/init-param
/filter
filter-mapping
filter-namewicket.bvh-console/filter-name
url-pattern/console/*/url-pattern
/filter-mapping
... snap ...
On the initially rendered homepage a link to other pages look like this.
...
li
button type=submit wicket:id=email onclick=var win =
this.ownerDocument.defaultView || this.ownerDocument.parentWindow; if (win
== window) {
window.location.href='?wicket:bookmarkablePage=%3Anl.politie.bvh.console.koppelingen.EmailPage';
} ;return false
Email host
/button
/li
...
So in short using 'mvn jetty:run' and trying the following link gives me the
expected results.
http://localhost:8080/bvh-console/?wicket:bookmarkablePage=%3Anl.politie.bvh.console.koppelingen.EmailPage
When locally deploying my app I expected the following link to work as well.
Unfortunately I ended up with the configured homepage, which is a different
page.
http://localhost:/avi/console/?wicket:bookmarkablePage=%3Anl.politie.bvh.console.koppelingen.EmailPage
To me it seems like I missed something, but I can't figure out what. Any
help is greatly appreciated.
I am btw using wicket version 1.3.1
Kind regards,
Minto van der Sluis
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Wrong-page-is-rendered-tp17233259p17233259.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: Why Localizer Retained so many heapsize?
Yes , it would be a bit slower. I'm going to make more test to see what
havn't store in cache.
Maybe i can caculate how many percents it effect my application performance
after i deploy it in a high load circumstance.
I'm not sure about what you said about your fix for not including page.
can you make it some clear? thanks very much.
2008/5/14 Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
ok so you dont store the tested cacheKey 's that returned null..
so that could result in a bit slower access because it is tried to resolve
everytime
I do think that my fix for not including the page is solving your real mem
leak problem
johan
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 2:03 PM, Quan Zhou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
getResourceSettings().setLocalizer(new Localizer() {
@Override
public void putIntoCache(final String cacheKey,final String
string) {
if (string != null cacheKey!=null)
super.putIntoCache(cacheKey, string);
}
});
2008/5/14 Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
but what did you do there in that method?
nothing? you dont cache anything anymore?
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 10:29 AM, Quan Zhou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hello everyone.
I override Localizer.putIntoCache method. and it really reduce the
heapsize
usage of Localizer.
The application is more stable now although the key remains large.
Hope we can find a way to shorter the key length.
thanks everyone.
2008/5/13 Eirik Rude [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
A soft reference is very common for this type of thing. I know
some
of
ICU's
resources are stored this way.
Jonathan Locke wrote:
maybe localizer should limit its size or use a soft reference
cache?
Johan Compagner wrote:
Can you really see what it holds?
Almost 2G in memory in localizer is extreme... Thats really a
lot
of
strings..
You could try to read that dump with yourkit if your current one
doesnt show enough.
On 5/9/08, Quan Zhou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello everyone.
I recently develop my App use Wicket1.3.3. It's my first time
to
use
this
framework and I feel it's really really a perfect framework for
me.
My app support both Simplified Chinese , Traditional Chinese, I
implement
this with Wicket i18n feature.
With the load increasing these days, I found my app would
become
very
lag
abount every 24 hours ,so that i would only restart it
without any choice.
when I found the lag, My log records many Exceptions like :
after 1 minute the Pagemap null is still locked by:
Thread[http-8080-321,5,main], giving
up trying to get the page for path xxx
I check the JVM status with jstat -gc , It tells that the
Heapsize
is
full
even after full GC.
My VM paraemter is -Xms2000m -Xmx2000m -XX:MaxNewSize=250m
-XX:MaxPermSize=250m
My deploy server has 2*CPU and 4G memory, Redhat AS4 OS +
tomcat
6.0.
There're 2000 sessions on the day while the timeout threshold
is
15
minutes.
So i dump the whole heapsize with the command jmap
-dump:live,format=b,file=3.dump.hprof processid
and i truely get a 2G size dump files. I use SAP Memory Analyer
to
see
what're stored in HeapMemory.
and I found a strange number of Retained Heap usage:
Classname
ShallowHeap
RetainHeap
RetainedHeap%
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
16
1,755,070,35287.64%
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
48 1,755,070,336
87.69%
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
33,554,448
1,755,069,632 87.69%
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
24 3928
0.00%
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
24 3928
0.00%
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
24 3928
0.00%
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
24 3928
0.00%
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
24 3928
0.00%
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
24 3928
0.00%
+ 2,863,659 more...
Is that means that the Localizer Object used most of the heap
size?
or Is this number normal for Wicket App?
I wonder whether I forget to release the memory by my mis-using
of
i18n
feature?
Is there
Re: Why Localizer Retained so many heapsize?
i fixed something in the localizer that it doesnt add the page id to the
cachekey string
that was your problem
everypage that was created also creates an localizer entry that is just
plain wrong.
So the pageid is not in the path anymore.. i think this is what really
caused your constant growing cache
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 5:04 PM, Quan Zhou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes , it would be a bit slower. I'm going to make more test to see what
havn't store in cache.
Maybe i can caculate how many percents it effect my application performance
after i deploy it in a high load circumstance.
I'm not sure about what you said about your fix for not including page.
can you make it some clear? thanks very much.
2008/5/14 Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
ok so you dont store the tested cacheKey 's that returned null..
so that could result in a bit slower access because it is tried to
resolve
everytime
I do think that my fix for not including the page is solving your real
mem
leak problem
johan
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 2:03 PM, Quan Zhou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
getResourceSettings().setLocalizer(new Localizer() {
@Override
public void putIntoCache(final String cacheKey,final String
string) {
if (string != null cacheKey!=null)
super.putIntoCache(cacheKey, string);
}
});
2008/5/14 Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
but what did you do there in that method?
nothing? you dont cache anything anymore?
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 10:29 AM, Quan Zhou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hello everyone.
I override Localizer.putIntoCache method. and it really reduce the
heapsize
usage of Localizer.
The application is more stable now although the key remains large.
Hope we can find a way to shorter the key length.
thanks everyone.
2008/5/13 Eirik Rude [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
A soft reference is very common for this type of thing. I know
some
of
ICU's
resources are stored this way.
Jonathan Locke wrote:
maybe localizer should limit its size or use a soft reference
cache?
Johan Compagner wrote:
Can you really see what it holds?
Almost 2G in memory in localizer is extreme... Thats really a
lot
of
strings..
You could try to read that dump with yourkit if your current
one
doesnt show enough.
On 5/9/08, Quan Zhou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello everyone.
I recently develop my App use Wicket1.3.3. It's my first time
to
use
this
framework and I feel it's really really a perfect framework
for
me.
My app support both Simplified Chinese , Traditional Chinese,
I
implement
this with Wicket i18n feature.
With the load increasing these days, I found my app would
become
very
lag
abount every 24 hours ,so that i would only restart it
without any choice.
when I found the lag, My log records many Exceptions like :
after 1 minute the Pagemap null is still locked by:
Thread[http-8080-321,5,main], giving
up trying to get the page for path xxx
I check the JVM status with jstat -gc , It tells that the
Heapsize
is
full
even after full GC.
My VM paraemter is -Xms2000m -Xmx2000m -XX:MaxNewSize=250m
-XX:MaxPermSize=250m
My deploy server has 2*CPU and 4G memory, Redhat AS4 OS +
tomcat
6.0.
There're 2000 sessions on the day while the timeout threshold
is
15
minutes.
So i dump the whole heapsize with the command jmap
-dump:live,format=b,file=3.dump.hprof processid
and i truely get a 2G size dump files. I use SAP Memory
Analyer
to
see
what're stored in HeapMemory.
and I found a strange number of Retained Heap usage:
Classname
ShallowHeap
RetainHeap
RetainedHeap%
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
16
1,755,070,35287.64%
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
..
48 1,755,070,336
87.69%
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
33,554,448
1,755,069,632
87.69%
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
24 3928
0.00%
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
24 3928
0.00%
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
24 3928
0.00%
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
24 3928
Re: Processing a form before page components are created
What about the situation where one of the components on the Page is a BookmarkeablePageLink and you need to pass it in some PageParameters? In this case how do you load the page parameters from the model in a lazy fashion? It doesn't appear to be possible since PageParameters does not evaluate against a model, thus the values need to be supplied upfront, while the page is being created... -- From: Joel Halbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 12:57 PM To: users@wicket.apache.org Subject: Re: Processing a form before page components are created I take your point, thanks for the pointer. -- From: Eelco Hillenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 1:31 AM To: users@wicket.apache.org Subject: Re: Processing a form before page components are created The reason I want to do this is that my pages are stateless, and I want to process the submitted form before all the components on the page are initialised, incase I need to load different data models, or redirect the request to another page, thus saving unnecessary database calls and component initialisation. At the moment what I am doing is processing the form by directly reading the page parameters in the constructor before I add any components to the page, and then redirecting the request or initializing the page as appropriate (bypassing the use of Form.onSubmit). If you make sure your models/ components work lazily you can avoid database calls being done until the components are actually rendered. Rendering is a separate phase executing after component construction and form handling. And you can let your form just populate a simple bean to avoid database access. I wouldn't worry about the creation of a few components, and you can break of any time with a RestartResponseException or set the next page (without breaking off current processing) using setResponsePage. Eelco - 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] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Processing a form before page components are created
unless, i suppose, if you override getPageParameters, something like this:
private void getLinkToUserProfile(final RatingModel r) {
return new BookmarkablePageLink(username, ViewDetails.class) {
@Override
public PageParameters getPageParameters() {
PageParameters pp = new PageParameters();
pp.put(Params.userId.toString(),
r.getRating().getUserId());
return pp;
}
};
}
--
From: Joel Halbert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 4:21 PM
To: users@wicket.apache.org
Subject: Re: Processing a form before page components are created
What about the situation where one of the components on the Page is a
BookmarkeablePageLink and you need to pass it in some PageParameters? In
this case how do you load the page parameters from the model in a lazy
fashion? It doesn't appear to be possible since PageParameters does not
evaluate against a model, thus the values need to be supplied upfront,
while the page is being created...
--
From: Joel Halbert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 12:57 PM
To: users@wicket.apache.org
Subject: Re: Processing a form before page components are created
I take your point, thanks for the pointer.
--
From: Eelco Hillenius [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 1:31 AM
To: users@wicket.apache.org
Subject: Re: Processing a form before page components are created
The reason I want to do this is that my pages are stateless, and I
want to
process the submitted form before all the components on the page are
initialised, incase I need to load different data models, or redirect
the
request to another page, thus saving unnecessary database calls and
component initialisation.
At the moment what I am doing is processing the form by directly
reading
the page parameters in the constructor before I add any components to
the
page, and then redirecting the request or initializing the page as
appropriate (bypassing the use of Form.onSubmit).
If you make sure your models/ components work lazily you can avoid
database calls being done until the components are actually rendered.
Rendering is a separate phase executing after component construction
and form handling. And you can let your form just populate a simple
bean to avoid database access. I wouldn't worry about the creation of
a few components, and you can break of any time with a
RestartResponseException or set the next page (without breaking off
current processing) using setResponsePage.
Eelco
-
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]
-
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: Using generics with some non-generic classes in Wicket
hmm i will make it Void
because the LoopItem doesnt really have a model with an Integer in the
model..
it has an primitive int itself stored in it self.
johan
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 4:52 PM, Stefan Simik [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Great, it work without warnings now ;)
Joham, could you please change the following class too ?
file: Loop.java
line:53
from: LoopItem extends WebMarkupContainer
to: LoopItem extends WebMarkupContainerInteger
thx ;)
Stefan
Johan Compagner wrote:
i already did the commit just yet..
i did make them all because i think people generally dont want to
generify them anyway (use the model object)
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 9:48 PM, Stefan Simik [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
please, and will be these classes later generified ?
Or should I make a RFE, or can I help anyway-for example attach a patch
?
I love your work and Wicket, so I do my best, to make it better ;)
Stefan Simik
Johan Compagner wrote:
yes thats the reason
you are calling the method add with a generified component but that
container itself is not generified
i dont like this about generics expecially the onces like this:
add(MarkupContainer? container)
then suddenly a none generified component cant be added...
thats really stupid ? should mean anything.. including none generics
johan
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 5:55 PM, Stefan Simik [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I have one idea,
the reason of the warnigs is, that parent of AjaxPagingNavigator is
PagingNavigator,
which has parent Panel --- that is not parameterized.
The same problem is with LoopItem, which extends the
WebMarkupContainer --- that is not parameterized.
? could this be the reason ?
Stefan Simik wrote:
Mhmm, it is meaningful ;) I will know in future, thx
One of the last occuring warning is, when working with
MarkupContainer#add(...) or #addOrReplace(...) method.
Example: I have a simple AjaxPagingNavigator, to which I add a
simple
ListView
---
ListViewInteger menu = new ListViewInteger(id, numbers){
//populate metods
}
add(menu);//warning here
The warning says:
Type safety: The method add(Component...) belongs to the raw type
MarkupContainer.
References to generic type MarkupContainerT should be
parameterized
I cannot find out, what's the warning reason, because ListView self
is
parameterized.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Using-generics-with-some-non-generic-classes-in-Wicket-tp17208928p17212015.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/Using-generics-with-some-non-generic-classes-in-Wicket-1.4M1-tp17208928p17216869.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/Using-generics-with-some-non-generic-classes-in-Wicket-1.4M1-tp17208928p17233011.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: Using generics with some non-generic classes in Wicket
and that is the whole problem who needs the Model itself as a string? many are dynamic with getObject() impl. then you shouldnt really do Model but IModel directly johan On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 4:29 PM, Doug Donohoe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From my original post on this topic: public class StringModel extends ModelString -Doug Peter Ertl wrote: StringModel looks ambigious to me, will it extend - LoadableDetachableModel - IModel - Model - AbstractReadOnlyModel - ??? Am 14.05.2008 um 15:47 schrieb Doug Donohoe: Let me outline what I believe the benefits are. For example: add(new LabelString(tournamentName, tournament.getName())); add(new LabelString(hostName, game.getHostPlayer())); row.add(new AttributeModifier(class, true, new ModelString(row.getIndex() % 2 == 0 ? odd : even))); add(new StringLabel(tournamentName, tournament.getName())); add(new StringLabel(hostName, game.getHostPlayer())); row.add(new AttributeModifier(class, true, new StringModel(row.getIndex() % 2 == 0 ? odd : even))); Sure, it seems like a small difference and a saving of two characters, but here is what I believe are the benefits of doing this: 1) I can more easily use the features of my IDE such as auto- completion 2) Find Usages is more accurate (at least in IntelliJ, where I'm not aware of a find-usages that scopes to a particular generic type) 3) Let's face it, Generics clutters up your code and makes it harder to read. This simplifies things a bit. In answer to Martijn's assumption (in a separate post) that I was going to iterate over all java types and all wicket types: that is an incorrect assumption. Obviously, I would want to pick the most common use cases and seek feedback from the community. Let us not dismiss it outright. I believe this is a valid topic of conversation. Generics are new to Wicket and still unused by many Java APIs and likely new to many programmers. I can tell you that using classes such as this made it much quicker and easier to remove all the warnings that showed up in my code when I migrated to 1.4. It seems easier to replace common usage from before (new Label(...)) with new StringLabel(...) rather than new LabelString (even typing that now was more difficult). In any case, there may be some complaining about the extensive use of Generics in 1.4 once it is released. This may make it easier to transition. Maybe not. At least let's be open to discussing it. Finally, in answer to the point about negating the point of generics, I respectfully disagree. One major point of generics is to avoid code duplication of boilerplate code. It it weren't for the need to create constructors, there wouldn't be any duplicated code. I agree that it is a fine balance to strike, but there are competing needs of readability and maintainability. -Doug Hoover, William wrote: imho, that seems like that adds a lot of unnecessary code. One of the nice things about Wicket is that it keeps the bloat to a minimum. -Original Message- From: Doug Donohoe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 8:21 AM To: users@wicket.apache.org Subject: Re: Using generics with some non-generic classes in Wicket Somewhat related to this thread, when I moved to generics win Wicket 1.4, I created some utility classes such as: public class VoidContainer extends WebMarkupContainerlt;Void public class VoidPanel extends Panellt;Void public class StringLabel extends Labellt;String public class IntegerModel extends Modellt;Integer public class StringModel extends Modellt;String public class DateModel extends Modellt;Date public class DoubleModel extends Modellt;Double And so on. This made my wicket code cleaner and easier to use. I think the Wicket 1.4 generics implementation is headed in the right direction. It was a pain at first because I had to parameterize everything, but creating convenience classes like this made it easier. I'm thinking about creating a patch with a suite of these types of classes because I think users will want something like this. -Doug Johan Compagner wrote: The problem is that wicket needs an annotation genericsOptional so that all the warnings about raw types are gone. A component only has to be generic if you use the IModel constructor or call getModel(), getModelObject() methods.. for the rest it is not really needed johan On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 9:28 AM, Sebastiaan van Erk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My post kind of missed the point, I shouldn't post when I'm already half asleep. :-) Obviously MarkupContainer satisfies the MarkupContainer? in a method argument, so it accepts the raw type. However, it generates a warning because the method says it's generified, so you should be
Re: A question about IHeaderContributor
as long as eelco wants to fix it i dont mind On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 9:59 AM, Gerolf Seitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 2:33 AM, Eelco Hillenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you think it is a bug, please open a JIRA issue for it. didn't we EOL Wicket 1.2.x? http://martijndashorst.com/blog/2008/03/23/wicket-127-the-last-maintenance-release/ Gerolf
AutoComplete enter key behavior
Hi,
I am trying to add a behavior to my autoComplete text field, where if i
press enter, it should be able to run a default search (with some text
input) and display a list of possible choices);
is it possible with autoComplete.add(new AjaxBehavior() {
@Override
public void onEvent() { }
} );
or some other additional component ?
Any help would be appreciable.
Rick
Re: FYI: new wicket site
Very nice! But where is the Powered by Apache Wicket button? Frank On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 10:36 AM, lars vonk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all, A new Wicket site is born! It's a Dutch site on which you can search for day trips and such. See: www.eropuit.nl. Thanks to the user- and dev-group for answering any questions we had during the process. Lars - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FYI: new wicket site
A new Wicket site is born! It's a Dutch site on which you can search for day trips and such. See: www.eropuit.nl. Nice. I like the 'history of Ajax' event. So soon ;-) Eelco - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: A question about IHeaderContributor
If you think it is a bug, please open a JIRA issue for it. didn't we EOL Wicket 1.2.x? http://martijndashorst.com/blog/2008/03/23/wicket-127-the-last-maintenance-release/ Yeah, I actually meant for Wicket 1.3 and up, because the bug is in there as well. Eelco - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AutoComplete enter key behavior
Hi,
We have changed our auto complete so that when you press enter on one of the
choices in the drop down we submit the form (default is to just populate the
box), is this what you mean? unfortunatly to do this you need to hack the
wicket-autocomplete.js at the point where the enter key is pressed and ad
some manual javascript to do what you want.
Richard
Ricky-22 wrote:
Hi,
I am trying to add a behavior to my autoComplete text field, where if i
press enter, it should be able to run a default search (with some text
input) and display a list of possible choices);
is it possible with autoComplete.add(new AjaxBehavior() {
@Override
public void onEvent() { }
} );
or some other additional component ?
Any help would be appreciable.
Rick
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/AutoComplete-%22enter%22-key-behavior-tp17234468p17235509.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: Processing a form before page components are created
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 8:21 AM, Joel Halbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What about the situation where one of the components on the Page is a BookmarkeablePageLink and you need to pass it in some PageParameters? In this case how do you load the page parameters from the model in a lazy fashion? It doesn't appear to be possible since PageParameters does not evaluate against a model, thus the values need to be supplied upfront, while the page is being created... But you don't have to load the page parameters lazily, right? Eelco - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Processing a form before page components are created
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 8:24 AM, Joel Halbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
unless, i suppose, if you override getPageParameters, something like this:
private void getLinkToUserProfile(final RatingModel r) {
return new BookmarkablePageLink(username,
ViewDetails.class) {
@Override
public PageParameters getPageParameters() {
PageParameters pp = new PageParameters();
pp.put(Params.userId.toString(),
r.getRating().getUserId());
return pp;
}
};
}
Right, something like that.
Eelco
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Using generics with some non-generic classes in Wicket
so why dont we store the integer in the model then? save an extra
memory slot, because if you make it Void then no one can set the
modelobject anyways.
-igor
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 8:28 AM, Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
hmm i will make it Void
because the LoopItem doesnt really have a model with an Integer in the
model..
it has an primitive int itself stored in it self.
johan
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 4:52 PM, Stefan Simik [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Great, it work without warnings now ;)
Joham, could you please change the following class too ?
file: Loop.java
line:53
from: LoopItem extends WebMarkupContainer
to: LoopItem extends WebMarkupContainerInteger
thx ;)
Stefan
Johan Compagner wrote:
i already did the commit just yet..
i did make them all because i think people generally dont want to
generify them anyway (use the model object)
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 9:48 PM, Stefan Simik [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
please, and will be these classes later generified ?
Or should I make a RFE, or can I help anyway-for example attach a patch
?
I love your work and Wicket, so I do my best, to make it better ;)
Stefan Simik
Johan Compagner wrote:
yes thats the reason
you are calling the method add with a generified component but that
container itself is not generified
i dont like this about generics expecially the onces like this:
add(MarkupContainer? container)
then suddenly a none generified component cant be added...
thats really stupid ? should mean anything.. including none generics
johan
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 5:55 PM, Stefan Simik [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I have one idea,
the reason of the warnigs is, that parent of AjaxPagingNavigator is
PagingNavigator,
which has parent Panel --- that is not parameterized.
The same problem is with LoopItem, which extends the
WebMarkupContainer --- that is not parameterized.
? could this be the reason ?
Stefan Simik wrote:
Mhmm, it is meaningful ;) I will know in future, thx
One of the last occuring warning is, when working with
MarkupContainer#add(...) or #addOrReplace(...) method.
Example: I have a simple AjaxPagingNavigator, to which I add a
simple
ListView
---
ListViewInteger menu = new ListViewInteger(id, numbers){
//populate metods
}
add(menu);//warning here
The warning says:
Type safety: The method add(Component...) belongs to the raw type
MarkupContainer.
References to generic type MarkupContainerT should be
parameterized
I cannot find out, what's the warning reason, because ListView self
is
parameterized.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Using-generics-with-some-non-generic-classes-in-Wicket-tp17208928p17212015.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/Using-generics-with-some-non-generic-classes-in-Wicket-1.4M1-tp17208928p17216869.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/Using-generics-with-some-non-generic-classes-in-Wicket-1.4M1-tp17208928p17233011.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]
Re: Using generics with some non-generic classes in Wicket
That would cost more memory then it would gain
Now it is just 1 int field.. And do know that model isnt a field any
more by itself on component. Ok it is still a reference but that is
shared by behaviours and metadata.
So if we set it in a model, we would have created the model object
with a reference to a created Integer object that has the int value...
And that is stored in component, now if there is no metadata or
behavior then that cost nothing but if there was then everything cost
more..
On 5/14/08, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
so why dont we store the integer in the model then? save an extra
memory slot, because if you make it Void then no one can set the
modelobject anyways.
-igor
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 8:28 AM, Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
hmm i will make it Void
because the LoopItem doesnt really have a model with an Integer in the
model..
it has an primitive int itself stored in it self.
johan
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 4:52 PM, Stefan Simik [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Great, it work without warnings now ;)
Joham, could you please change the following class too ?
file: Loop.java
line:53
from: LoopItem extends WebMarkupContainer
to: LoopItem extends WebMarkupContainerInteger
thx ;)
Stefan
Johan Compagner wrote:
i already did the commit just yet..
i did make them all because i think people generally dont want to
generify them anyway (use the model object)
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 9:48 PM, Stefan Simik [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
please, and will be these classes later generified ?
Or should I make a RFE, or can I help anyway-for example attach a
patch
?
I love your work and Wicket, so I do my best, to make it better ;)
Stefan Simik
Johan Compagner wrote:
yes thats the reason
you are calling the method add with a generified component but that
container itself is not generified
i dont like this about generics expecially the onces like this:
add(MarkupContainer? container)
then suddenly a none generified component cant be added...
thats really stupid ? should mean anything.. including none
generics
johan
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 5:55 PM, Stefan Simik
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I have one idea,
the reason of the warnigs is, that parent of AjaxPagingNavigator is
PagingNavigator,
which has parent Panel --- that is not parameterized.
The same problem is with LoopItem, which extends the
WebMarkupContainer --- that is not parameterized.
? could this be the reason ?
Stefan Simik wrote:
Mhmm, it is meaningful ;) I will know in future, thx
One of the last occuring warning is, when working with
MarkupContainer#add(...) or #addOrReplace(...) method.
Example: I have a simple AjaxPagingNavigator, to which I add a
simple
ListView
---
ListViewInteger menu = new ListViewInteger(id, numbers){
//populate metods
}
add(menu);//warning here
The warning says:
Type safety: The method add(Component...) belongs to the raw
type
MarkupContainer.
References to generic type MarkupContainerT should be
parameterized
I cannot find out, what's the warning reason, because ListView
self
is
parameterized.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Using-generics-with-some-non-generic-classes-in-Wicket-tp17208928p17212015.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/Using-generics-with-some-non-generic-classes-in-Wicket-1.4M1-tp17208928p17216869.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/Using-generics-with-some-non-generic-classes-in-Wicket-1.4M1-tp17208928p17233011.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]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AutoComplete enter key behavior
Hi,
Thanks for reply. I meant right now, there is an onChange event behavior
attached to the autocomplete, which allows me to type in the text box and
the list of possible matched choices appear; but what i also want is that
when i press enter on the text box, it should give me list of choices
(taking in some input search string).
Is that possible without adding any additional java script ?
Rick
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 12:40 PM, richardwilko
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
We have changed our auto complete so that when you press enter on one of
the
choices in the drop down we submit the form (default is to just populate
the
box), is this what you mean? unfortunatly to do this you need to hack the
wicket-autocomplete.js at the point where the enter key is pressed and ad
some manual javascript to do what you want.
Richard
Ricky-22 wrote:
Hi,
I am trying to add a behavior to my autoComplete text field, where if i
press enter, it should be able to run a default search (with some text
input) and display a list of possible choices);
is it possible with autoComplete.add(new AjaxBehavior() {
@Override
public void onEvent() { }
} );
or some other additional component ?
Any help would be appreciable.
Rick
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/AutoComplete-%22enter%22-key-behavior-tp17234468p17235509.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]
--
Regards
Vyas, Anirudh
|| ॐ ||
Re: Wicket play nicely with GWT
passing generated data in and out of GWT that doesn't come from the RPC is a bit messy... there are a few ways to do it, but you really want to avoid trying to do that unless GWT initiates the call. I suspect that is the reason most people who have looked into it have abandoned the idea of integration. However, I start to see it as a possibility because of the way in GWT you can attach GWT components to any DOM element... one way to integrate would be to have wicket generate the GWT side based upon its own configuration and bind the GWT components to the wicket/html equivalent elements. That is by no means a hard plan, but certainly something to try... Not sure yet how that would work on the server side though (not enough experience with Wicket). - Brill Pappin On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 1:42 AM, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: you can always generate a callback url using urlfor(interface) and then pass that url to the gwt component. for example of this see how Link generates a url that results in onLinkClicked() being invoked on it. -igor - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AutoComplete enter key behavior
So you want the autocomplete behaviour, but only when you press the enter
key, ie you press enter and you get the same drop down box as you get in
normal autocomplete behaviour?
I dont think you can do this without making your own javascript, or hacking
at the original wicket-autocomplete.js
You could probably do it with an ajaxbehaviour like you have, and then
refresh a ListView, but this wouldnt be the same.
Ricky-22 wrote:
Hi,
Thanks for reply. I meant right now, there is an onChange event behavior
attached to the autocomplete, which allows me to type in the text box and
the list of possible matched choices appear; but what i also want is that
when i press enter on the text box, it should give me list of choices
(taking in some input search string).
Is that possible without adding any additional java script ?
Rick
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 12:40 PM, richardwilko
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
We have changed our auto complete so that when you press enter on one of
the
choices in the drop down we submit the form (default is to just populate
the
box), is this what you mean? unfortunatly to do this you need to hack
the
wicket-autocomplete.js at the point where the enter key is pressed and ad
some manual javascript to do what you want.
Richard
Ricky-22 wrote:
Hi,
I am trying to add a behavior to my autoComplete text field, where if i
press enter, it should be able to run a default search (with some text
input) and display a list of possible choices);
is it possible with autoComplete.add(new AjaxBehavior() {
@Override
public void onEvent() { }
} );
or some other additional component ?
Any help would be appreciable.
Rick
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/AutoComplete-%22enter%22-key-behavior-tp17234468p17235509.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]
--
Regards
Vyas, Anirudh
|| ॐ ||
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/AutoComplete-%22enter%22-key-behavior-tp17234468p17238242.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: A question about IHeaderContributor
gotcha, thx On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 6:40 PM, Eelco Hillenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you think it is a bug, please open a JIRA issue for it. didn't we EOL Wicket 1.2.x? http://martijndashorst.com/blog/2008/03/23/wicket-127-the-last-maintenance-release/ Yeah, I actually meant for Wicket 1.3 and up, because the bug is in there as well. Eelco - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FYI: new wicket site
Nice, but can I search by keyword ? Suppose I want to search for the history of Ajax event mentioned by Eelco, how can I do that ? Maarten On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 6:39 PM, Eelco Hillenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A new Wicket site is born! It's a Dutch site on which you can search for day trips and such. See: www.eropuit.nl. Nice. I like the 'history of Ajax' event. So soon ;-) Eelco - 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: FYI: new wicket site
This is not yet implemented. So for now you'd have to know for instance when and where it is and that will limit your search. Lars On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 9:30 PM, Maarten Bosteels [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nice, but can I search by keyword ? Suppose I want to search for the history of Ajax event mentioned by Eelco, how can I do that ? Maarten On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 6:39 PM, Eelco Hillenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A new Wicket site is born! It's a Dutch site on which you can search for day trips and such. See: www.eropuit.nl. Nice. I like the 'history of Ajax' event. So soon ;-) Eelco - 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: Using generics with some non-generic classes in Wicket
so i just implemented IAuthorizationStrategy and on this line in my class:
public boolean isInstantiationAuthorized(Class ? extends Component
componentClass)
i get: Component is a raw type. References to generic type
ComponentT should be parameterized
so that means we have to change our sig to ? extends Component?
but then we are back to the problem described in this thread.
generics suck.
-igor
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 12:12 AM, Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I dont think that user gets a warning if a param is of raw type. But
we have a warning there.
The problem is that for example MarkupContainer.add(Component) or
IVisitor.visit(Component) i dont care what component is put in
generified or not.
In add it really doesnt matter because we dont do anything with it.
With visitor it is different because the user could use it inside the
method. But it should be useable without warnings for generified and
none generfied components..
On 5/14/08, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
if we have a signature that accepts a raw type, will that also cause a
warning in user's code?
also having those suppress annotations practically _everywhere_ will be
annoying
-igor
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 11:56 PM, Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I dont care, because i cant do any thing with the ? The only thing it
enforces is that it must now be a generic class which is annoying. Not
to mention that in that area eclipse and javac accept different
things
So or we in wicket dont use ? any where and have supress warning
everywhere for that or we do use it and then suddenly it is in my eyes
restricted to much.
On 5/14/08, Sebastiaan van Erk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Johan Compagner wrote:
yes thats the reason
you are calling the method add with a generified component but that
container itself is not generified
i dont like this about generics expecially the onces like this:
add(MarkupContainer? container)
then suddenly a none generified component cant be added...
thats really stupid ? should mean anything.. including none
generics
No, that's not correct. For example, List? is much more restrictive
than a raw List (which is a ListObject). To a raw list you can add an
instance of any type whatever, i.e., list.add(new Object()). But in
List? the ? is a wildcard which says it could be any type there,
i.e.,
it could be a ListInteger. But you can't add a new Object() to a
ListInteger!
Thus MarkupContainer? means MarkupContainer parameterized by some
unknown type, and *not* MarkupContainer parameterized by Object, which
is what the raw type means.
Regards,
Sebastiaan
johan
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 5:55 PM, Stefan Simik
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I have one idea,
the reason of the warnigs is, that parent of AjaxPagingNavigator is
PagingNavigator,
which has parent Panel --- that is not parameterized.
The same problem is with LoopItem, which extends the
WebMarkupContainer --- that is not parameterized.
? could this be the reason ?
Stefan Simik wrote:
Mhmm, it is meaningful ;) I will know in future, thx
One of the last occuring warning is, when working with
MarkupContainer#add(...) or #addOrReplace(...) method.
Example: I have a simple AjaxPagingNavigator, to which I add a
simple
ListView
---
ListViewInteger menu = new ListViewInteger(id, numbers){
//populate metods
}
add(menu);//warning here
The warning says:
Type safety: The method add(Component...) belongs to the raw type
MarkupContainer.
References to generic type MarkupContainerT should be
parameterized
I cannot find out, what's the warning reason, because ListView self
is
parameterized.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Using-generics-with-some-non-generic-classes-in-Wicket-tp17208928p17212015.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]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional
Re: Using generics with some non-generic classes in Wicket
yes then all the call to that method must be of a generic type.
cant be raw
i dont know what are we going to do in wicket i think we should decide it
should we just where we dont care about generic delete/not use the ? and
then
supresswarning?
johan
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 9:45 PM, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
so i just implemented IAuthorizationStrategy and on this line in my class:
public boolean isInstantiationAuthorized(Class ? extends Component
componentClass)
i get: Component is a raw type. References to generic type
ComponentT should be parameterized
so that means we have to change our sig to ? extends Component?
but then we are back to the problem described in this thread.
generics suck.
-igor
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 12:12 AM, Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I dont think that user gets a warning if a param is of raw type. But
we have a warning there.
The problem is that for example MarkupContainer.add(Component) or
IVisitor.visit(Component) i dont care what component is put in
generified or not.
In add it really doesnt matter because we dont do anything with it.
With visitor it is different because the user could use it inside the
method. But it should be useable without warnings for generified and
none generfied components..
On 5/14/08, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
if we have a signature that accepts a raw type, will that also cause a
warning in user's code?
also having those suppress annotations practically _everywhere_ will be
annoying
-igor
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 11:56 PM, Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I dont care, because i cant do any thing with the ? The only thing it
enforces is that it must now be a generic class which is annoying.
Not
to mention that in that area eclipse and javac accept different
things
So or we in wicket dont use ? any where and have supress warning
everywhere for that or we do use it and then suddenly it is in my
eyes
restricted to much.
On 5/14/08, Sebastiaan van Erk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Johan Compagner wrote:
yes thats the reason
you are calling the method add with a generified component but
that
container itself is not generified
i dont like this about generics expecially the onces like this:
add(MarkupContainer? container)
then suddenly a none generified component cant be added...
thats really stupid ? should mean anything.. including none
generics
No, that's not correct. For example, List? is much more
restrictive
than a raw List (which is a ListObject). To a raw list you can
add an
instance of any type whatever, i.e., list.add(new Object()). But in
List? the ? is a wildcard which says it could be any type there,
i.e.,
it could be a ListInteger. But you can't add a new Object() to a
ListInteger!
Thus MarkupContainer? means MarkupContainer parameterized by
some
unknown type, and *not* MarkupContainer parameterized by Object,
which
is what the raw type means.
Regards,
Sebastiaan
johan
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 5:55 PM, Stefan Simik
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I have one idea,
the reason of the warnigs is, that parent of AjaxPagingNavigator
is
PagingNavigator,
which has parent Panel --- that is not parameterized.
The same problem is with LoopItem, which extends the
WebMarkupContainer --- that is not parameterized.
? could this be the reason ?
Stefan Simik wrote:
Mhmm, it is meaningful ;) I will know in future, thx
One of the last occuring warning is, when working with
MarkupContainer#add(...) or #addOrReplace(...) method.
Example: I have a simple AjaxPagingNavigator, to which I add a
simple
ListView
---
ListViewInteger menu = new ListViewInteger(id, numbers){
//populate metods
}
add(menu);//warning here
The warning says:
Type safety: The method add(Component...) belongs to the raw
type
MarkupContainer.
References to generic type MarkupContainerT should be
parameterized
I cannot find out, what's the warning reason, because ListView
self
is
parameterized.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Using-generics-with-some-non-generic-classes-in-Wicket-tp17208928p17212015.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: Using generics with some non-generic classes in Wicket
then our users have to suppress warnings in their code, which is
unacceptable at least to me. the whole generics thing turned out to be
quiet a lot crappier then i thought it would.
-igor
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 12:48 PM, Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
yes then all the call to that method must be of a generic type.
cant be raw
i dont know what are we going to do in wicket i think we should decide it
should we just where we dont care about generic delete/not use the ? and
then
supresswarning?
johan
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 9:45 PM, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
so i just implemented IAuthorizationStrategy and on this line in my class:
public boolean isInstantiationAuthorized(Class ? extends Component
componentClass)
i get: Component is a raw type. References to generic type
ComponentT should be parameterized
so that means we have to change our sig to ? extends Component?
but then we are back to the problem described in this thread.
generics suck.
-igor
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 12:12 AM, Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I dont think that user gets a warning if a param is of raw type. But
we have a warning there.
The problem is that for example MarkupContainer.add(Component) or
IVisitor.visit(Component) i dont care what component is put in
generified or not.
In add it really doesnt matter because we dont do anything with it.
With visitor it is different because the user could use it inside the
method. But it should be useable without warnings for generified and
none generfied components..
On 5/14/08, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
if we have a signature that accepts a raw type, will that also cause a
warning in user's code?
also having those suppress annotations practically _everywhere_ will be
annoying
-igor
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 11:56 PM, Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I dont care, because i cant do any thing with the ? The only thing it
enforces is that it must now be a generic class which is annoying.
Not
to mention that in that area eclipse and javac accept different
things
So or we in wicket dont use ? any where and have supress warning
everywhere for that or we do use it and then suddenly it is in my
eyes
restricted to much.
On 5/14/08, Sebastiaan van Erk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Johan Compagner wrote:
yes thats the reason
you are calling the method add with a generified component but
that
container itself is not generified
i dont like this about generics expecially the onces like this:
add(MarkupContainer? container)
then suddenly a none generified component cant be added...
thats really stupid ? should mean anything.. including none
generics
No, that's not correct. For example, List? is much more
restrictive
than a raw List (which is a ListObject). To a raw list you can
add an
instance of any type whatever, i.e., list.add(new Object()). But in
List? the ? is a wildcard which says it could be any type there,
i.e.,
it could be a ListInteger. But you can't add a new Object() to a
ListInteger!
Thus MarkupContainer? means MarkupContainer parameterized by
some
unknown type, and *not* MarkupContainer parameterized by Object,
which
is what the raw type means.
Regards,
Sebastiaan
johan
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 5:55 PM, Stefan Simik
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I have one idea,
the reason of the warnigs is, that parent of AjaxPagingNavigator
is
PagingNavigator,
which has parent Panel --- that is not parameterized.
The same problem is with LoopItem, which extends the
WebMarkupContainer --- that is not parameterized.
? could this be the reason ?
Stefan Simik wrote:
Mhmm, it is meaningful ;) I will know in future, thx
One of the last occuring warning is, when working with
MarkupContainer#add(...) or #addOrReplace(...) method.
Example: I have a simple AjaxPagingNavigator, to which I add a
simple
ListView
---
ListViewInteger menu = new ListViewInteger(id, numbers){
//populate metods
}
add(menu);//warning here
The warning says:
Type safety: The method add(Component...) belongs to the raw
type
MarkupContainer.
References to generic type MarkupContainerT should be
parameterized
I cannot find out, what's the warning reason, because ListView
self
is
parameterized.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Using-generics-with-some-non-generic-classes-in-Wicket-tp17208928p17212015.html
Sent
Re: Using generics with some non-generic classes in Wicket
Igor Vaynberg wrote:
then our users have to suppress warnings in their code, which is
unacceptable at least to me. the whole generics thing turned out to be
quiet a lot crappier then i thought it would.
I actually like having the generics better than not having it. In both
cases sometimes it's a pain: generics is verbose, non-generics you have
to use typecasts all the time and a bunch of errors are delayed to runtime.
What I don't really understand is, if you don't like generics, why can't
you just tell the compiler to ignore the warnings? I mean, in Java 5
generics is just not really optional, not in the JDK libs either - if
you ignore generics there you get warnings as well; so there too, it's
the user's burden to bear.
And especially if you look at the vote result, I think the majority
wants the generics...
Regards,
Sebastiaan
-igor
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 12:48 PM, Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
yes then all the call to that method must be of a generic type.
cant be raw
i dont know what are we going to do in wicket i think we should decide it
should we just where we dont care about generic delete/not use the ? and
then
supresswarning?
johan
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 9:45 PM, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
so i just implemented IAuthorizationStrategy and on this line in my class:
public boolean isInstantiationAuthorized(Class ? extends Component
componentClass)
i get: Component is a raw type. References to generic type
ComponentT should be parameterized
so that means we have to change our sig to ? extends Component?
but then we are back to the problem described in this thread.
generics suck.
-igor
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 12:12 AM, Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I dont think that user gets a warning if a param is of raw type. But
we have a warning there.
The problem is that for example MarkupContainer.add(Component) or
IVisitor.visit(Component) i dont care what component is put in
generified or not.
In add it really doesnt matter because we dont do anything with it.
With visitor it is different because the user could use it inside the
method. But it should be useable without warnings for generified and
none generfied components..
On 5/14/08, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
if we have a signature that accepts a raw type, will that also cause a
warning in user's code?
also having those suppress annotations practically _everywhere_ will be
annoying
-igor
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 11:56 PM, Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I dont care, because i cant do any thing with the ? The only thing it
enforces is that it must now be a generic class which is annoying.
Not
to mention that in that area eclipse and javac accept different
things
So or we in wicket dont use ? any where and have supress warning
everywhere for that or we do use it and then suddenly it is in my
eyes
restricted to much.
On 5/14/08, Sebastiaan van Erk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Johan Compagner wrote:
yes thats the reason
you are calling the method add with a generified component but
that
container itself is not generified
i dont like this about generics expecially the onces like this:
add(MarkupContainer? container)
then suddenly a none generified component cant be added...
thats really stupid ? should mean anything.. including none
generics
No, that's not correct. For example, List? is much more
restrictive
than a raw List (which is a ListObject). To a raw list you can
add an
instance of any type whatever, i.e., list.add(new Object()). But in
List? the ? is a wildcard which says it could be any type there,
i.e.,
it could be a ListInteger. But you can't add a new Object() to a
ListInteger!
Thus MarkupContainer? means MarkupContainer parameterized by
some
unknown type, and *not* MarkupContainer parameterized by Object,
which
is what the raw type means.
Regards,
Sebastiaan
johan
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 5:55 PM, Stefan Simik
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I have one idea,
the reason of the warnigs is, that parent of AjaxPagingNavigator
is
PagingNavigator,
which has parent Panel --- that is not parameterized.
The same problem is with LoopItem, which extends the
WebMarkupContainer --- that is not parameterized.
? could this be the reason ?
Stefan Simik wrote:
Mhmm, it is meaningful ;) I will know in future, thx
One of the last occuring warning is, when working with
MarkupContainer#add(...) or #addOrReplace(...) method.
Example: I have a simple AjaxPagingNavigator, to which I add a
simple
ListView
---
ListViewInteger menu = new ListViewInteger(id, numbers){
//populate metods
}
add(menu);//warning here
The warning says:
Type safety: The method add(Component...) belongs to the
Re: Using generics with some non-generic classes in Wicket
how do users get in this situation a warning?
if we as a framework say method(RawType type)
then why would that give a warning in the caller method?
We just say we accept raw type there
johan
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 9:53 PM, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
then our users have to suppress warnings in their code, which is
unacceptable at least to me. the whole generics thing turned out to be
quiet a lot crappier then i thought it would.
-igor
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 12:48 PM, Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
yes then all the call to that method must be of a generic type.
cant be raw
i dont know what are we going to do in wicket i think we should decide it
should we just where we dont care about generic delete/not use the ?
and
then
supresswarning?
johan
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 9:45 PM, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
so i just implemented IAuthorizationStrategy and on this line in my
class:
public boolean isInstantiationAuthorized(Class ? extends Component
componentClass)
i get: Component is a raw type. References to generic type
ComponentT should be parameterized
so that means we have to change our sig to ? extends Component?
but then we are back to the problem described in this thread.
generics suck.
-igor
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 12:12 AM, Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I dont think that user gets a warning if a param is of raw type. But
we have a warning there.
The problem is that for example MarkupContainer.add(Component) or
IVisitor.visit(Component) i dont care what component is put in
generified or not.
In add it really doesnt matter because we dont do anything with it.
With visitor it is different because the user could use it inside the
method. But it should be useable without warnings for generified and
none generfied components..
On 5/14/08, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
if we have a signature that accepts a raw type, will that also cause
a
warning in user's code?
also having those suppress annotations practically _everywhere_ will
be
annoying
-igor
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 11:56 PM, Johan Compagner
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I dont care, because i cant do any thing with the ? The only thing
it
enforces is that it must now be a generic class which is annoying.
Not
to mention that in that area eclipse and javac accept different
things
So or we in wicket dont use ? any where and have supress warning
everywhere for that or we do use it and then suddenly it is in my
eyes
restricted to much.
On 5/14/08, Sebastiaan van Erk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Johan Compagner wrote:
yes thats the reason
you are calling the method add with a generified component but
that
container itself is not generified
i dont like this about generics expecially the onces like
this:
add(MarkupContainer? container)
then suddenly a none generified component cant be added...
thats really stupid ? should mean anything.. including none
generics
No, that's not correct. For example, List? is much more
restrictive
than a raw List (which is a ListObject). To a raw list you can
add an
instance of any type whatever, i.e., list.add(new Object()). But
in
List? the ? is a wildcard which says it could be any type
there,
i.e.,
it could be a ListInteger. But you can't add a new Object() to
a
ListInteger!
Thus MarkupContainer? means MarkupContainer parameterized by
some
unknown type, and *not* MarkupContainer parameterized by
Object,
which
is what the raw type means.
Regards,
Sebastiaan
johan
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 5:55 PM, Stefan Simik
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I have one idea,
the reason of the warnigs is, that parent of
AjaxPagingNavigator
is
PagingNavigator,
which has parent Panel --- that is not parameterized.
The same problem is with LoopItem, which extends the
WebMarkupContainer --- that is not parameterized.
? could this be the reason ?
Stefan Simik wrote:
Mhmm, it is meaningful ;) I will know in future, thx
One of the last occuring warning is, when working with
MarkupContainer#add(...) or #addOrReplace(...) method.
Example: I have a simple AjaxPagingNavigator, to which I
add a
simple
ListView
---
ListViewInteger menu = new ListViewInteger(id,
numbers){
//populate metods
}
add(menu);//warning here
The warning says:
Type safety: The
Re: Using generics with some non-generic classes in Wicket
just try it, line 6 will giveyou the warning, so we have no choice but
to declare it as Class? extends Component?
01: public static class Test implements IAuthorizationStrategy {
02:public boolean isActionAuthorized(Component ? component,
Action action)
03:{
04:throw new UnsupportedOperationException();
05:}
06:public boolean isInstantiationAuthorized(Class ? extends
Component componentClass)
07:{
08:throw new UnsupportedOperationException();
09:}
10:}
-igor
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 1:29 PM, Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
how do users get in this situation a warning?
if we as a framework say method(RawType type)
then why would that give a warning in the caller method?
We just say we accept raw type there
johan
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 9:53 PM, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
then our users have to suppress warnings in their code, which is
unacceptable at least to me. the whole generics thing turned out to be
quiet a lot crappier then i thought it would.
-igor
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 12:48 PM, Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
yes then all the call to that method must be of a generic type.
cant be raw
i dont know what are we going to do in wicket i think we should decide it
should we just where we dont care about generic delete/not use the ?
and
then
supresswarning?
johan
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 9:45 PM, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
so i just implemented IAuthorizationStrategy and on this line in my
class:
public boolean isInstantiationAuthorized(Class ? extends Component
componentClass)
i get: Component is a raw type. References to generic type
ComponentT should be parameterized
so that means we have to change our sig to ? extends Component?
but then we are back to the problem described in this thread.
generics suck.
-igor
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 12:12 AM, Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I dont think that user gets a warning if a param is of raw type. But
we have a warning there.
The problem is that for example MarkupContainer.add(Component) or
IVisitor.visit(Component) i dont care what component is put in
generified or not.
In add it really doesnt matter because we dont do anything with it.
With visitor it is different because the user could use it inside the
method. But it should be useable without warnings for generified and
none generfied components..
On 5/14/08, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
if we have a signature that accepts a raw type, will that also cause
a
warning in user's code?
also having those suppress annotations practically _everywhere_ will
be
annoying
-igor
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 11:56 PM, Johan Compagner
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I dont care, because i cant do any thing with the ? The only thing
it
enforces is that it must now be a generic class which is annoying.
Not
to mention that in that area eclipse and javac accept different
things
So or we in wicket dont use ? any where and have supress warning
everywhere for that or we do use it and then suddenly it is in my
eyes
restricted to much.
On 5/14/08, Sebastiaan van Erk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Johan Compagner wrote:
yes thats the reason
you are calling the method add with a generified component but
that
container itself is not generified
i dont like this about generics expecially the onces like
this:
add(MarkupContainer? container)
then suddenly a none generified component cant be added...
thats really stupid ? should mean anything.. including none
generics
No, that's not correct. For example, List? is much more
restrictive
than a raw List (which is a ListObject). To a raw list you can
add an
instance of any type whatever, i.e., list.add(new Object()). But
in
List? the ? is a wildcard which says it could be any type
there,
i.e.,
it could be a ListInteger. But you can't add a new Object() to
a
ListInteger!
Thus MarkupContainer? means MarkupContainer parameterized by
some
unknown type, and *not* MarkupContainer parameterized by
Object,
which
is what the raw type means.
Regards,
Sebastiaan
johan
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 5:55 PM, Stefan Simik
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I have one idea,
the reason of the warnigs is, that parent of
AjaxPagingNavigator
is
PagingNavigator,
which has parent Panel --- that is not parameterized.
The same problem is with LoopItem, which extends the
WebMarkupContainer --- that is not parameterized.
? could this be the reason ?
Re: Using generics with some non-generic classes in Wicket
In IDEA it is annoying when you enable inspection 'Raw use of
parametrized class' which is generally quite useful
it will complain on
protected boolean isPageAuthorized(final Class? extends Page
pageClass)
so, no, you don't get a warning but a potentially useful inspection is
more or less useless
(warnings have no effect once you get used to them)
Am 14.05.2008 um 22:29 schrieb Johan Compagner:
how do users get in this situation a warning?
if we as a framework say method(RawType type)
then why would that give a warning in the caller method?
We just say we accept raw type there
johan
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 9:53 PM, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
then our users have to suppress warnings in their code, which is
unacceptable at least to me. the whole generics thing turned out to
be
quiet a lot crappier then i thought it would.
-igor
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 12:48 PM, Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
yes then all the call to that method must be of a generic type.
cant be raw
i dont know what are we going to do in wicket i think we should
decide it
should we just where we dont care about generic delete/not use the
?
and
then
supresswarning?
johan
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 9:45 PM, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
so i just implemented IAuthorizationStrategy and on this line in my
class:
public boolean isInstantiationAuthorized(Class ? extends
Component
componentClass)
i get: Component is a raw type. References to generic type
ComponentT should be parameterized
so that means we have to change our sig to ? extends Component?
but then we are back to the problem described in this thread.
generics suck.
-igor
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 12:12 AM, Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I dont think that user gets a warning if a param is of raw type.
But
we have a warning there.
The problem is that for example MarkupContainer.add(Component) or
IVisitor.visit(Component) i dont care what component is put in
generified or not.
In add it really doesnt matter because we dont do anything with
it.
With visitor it is different because the user could use it
inside the
method. But it should be useable without warnings for generified
and
none generfied components..
On 5/14/08, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
if we have a signature that accepts a raw type, will that also
cause
a
warning in user's code?
also having those suppress annotations practically _everywhere_
will
be
annoying
-igor
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 11:56 PM, Johan Compagner
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I dont care, because i cant do any thing with the ? The only
thing
it
enforces is that it must now be a generic class which is
annoying.
Not
to mention that in that area eclipse and javac accept different
things
So or we in wicket dont use ? any where and have supress
warning
everywhere for that or we do use it and then suddenly it is in
my
eyes
restricted to much.
On 5/14/08, Sebastiaan van Erk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Johan Compagner wrote:
yes thats the reason
you are calling the method add with a generified component but
that
container itself is not generified
i dont like this about generics expecially the onces like
this:
add(MarkupContainer? container)
then suddenly a none generified component cant be added...
thats really stupid ? should mean anything.. including none
generics
No, that's not correct. For example, List? is much more
restrictive
than a raw List (which is a ListObject). To a raw list you
can
add an
instance of any type whatever, i.e., list.add(new Object()).
But
in
List? the ? is a wildcard which says it could be any type
there,
i.e.,
it could be a ListInteger. But you can't add a new Object()
to
a
ListInteger!
Thus MarkupContainer? means MarkupContainer parameterized by
some
unknown type, and *not* MarkupContainer parameterized by
Object,
which
is what the raw type means.
Regards,
Sebastiaan
johan
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 5:55 PM, Stefan Simik
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I have one idea,
the reason of the warnigs is, that parent of
AjaxPagingNavigator
is
PagingNavigator,
which has parent Panel --- that is not parameterized.
The same problem is with LoopItem, which extends the
WebMarkupContainer --- that is not parameterized.
? could this be the reason ?
Stefan Simik wrote:
Mhmm, it is meaningful ;) I will know in future, thx
One of the last occuring warning is, when working with
MarkupContainer#add(...) or #addOrReplace(...) method.
Example: I have a simple AjaxPagingNavigator, to which I
add a
simple
ListView
---
ListViewInteger menu = new ListViewInteger(id,
numbers){
//populate metods
}
add(menu);//warning here
The warning says:
Type safety: The method add(Component...) belongs to the
raw
type
MarkupContainer.
References to generic type MarkupContainerT
Re: Using generics with some non-generic classes in Wicket
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 1:20 PM, Sebastiaan van Erk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Igor Vaynberg wrote: then our users have to suppress warnings in their code, which is unacceptable at least to me. the whole generics thing turned out to be quiet a lot crappier then i thought it would. I actually like having the generics better than not having it. In both cases sometimes it's a pain: generics is verbose, non-generics you have to use typecasts all the time and a bunch of errors are delayed to runtime. maybe it is just me, but i dont remember the last time i got a class cast exception when casting down the model object. i write wicket code every day. but i will say that imodeluser is definetely a huge improvement/benefit. What I don't really understand is, if you don't like generics, why can't you just tell the compiler to ignore the warnings? I mean, in Java 5 generics is just not really optional, not in the JDK libs either - if you ignore generics there you get warnings as well; so there too, it's the user's burden to bear. i do like generics. did i ever say otherwise? the problem here is that if we scope something as Class? extends Component then even though you ARE using generics in your code you will still get a warning because we did not scope the class as Class? extends Component?. on the other hand if we do scope it as Class? extends Component? then you can no longer pass a raw reference when calling the function. so we are screwed if we do and we are screwed if we dont, i expected generics to be better. And especially if you look at the vote result, I think the majority wants the generics... that vote was before we uncovered this issue. we voted on the idea of generics, not on the implementation. -igor Regards, Sebastiaan -igor On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 12:48 PM, Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: yes then all the call to that method must be of a generic type. cant be raw i dont know what are we going to do in wicket i think we should decide it should we just where we dont care about generic delete/not use the ? and then supresswarning? johan On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 9:45 PM, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: so i just implemented IAuthorizationStrategy and on this line in my class: public boolean isInstantiationAuthorized(Class ? extends Component componentClass) i get: Component is a raw type. References to generic type ComponentT should be parameterized so that means we have to change our sig to ? extends Component? but then we are back to the problem described in this thread. generics suck. -igor On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 12:12 AM, Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I dont think that user gets a warning if a param is of raw type. But we have a warning there. The problem is that for example MarkupContainer.add(Component) or IVisitor.visit(Component) i dont care what component is put in generified or not. In add it really doesnt matter because we dont do anything with it. With visitor it is different because the user could use it inside the method. But it should be useable without warnings for generified and none generfied components.. On 5/14/08, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: if we have a signature that accepts a raw type, will that also cause a warning in user's code? also having those suppress annotations practically _everywhere_ will be annoying -igor On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 11:56 PM, Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I dont care, because i cant do any thing with the ? The only thing it enforces is that it must now be a generic class which is annoying. Not to mention that in that area eclipse and javac accept different things So or we in wicket dont use ? any where and have supress warning everywhere for that or we do use it and then suddenly it is in my eyes restricted to much. On 5/14/08, Sebastiaan van Erk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Johan Compagner wrote: yes thats the reason you are calling the method add with a generified component but that container itself is not generified i dont like this about generics expecially the onces like this: add(MarkupContainer? container) then suddenly a none generified component cant be added... thats really stupid ? should mean anything.. including none generics No, that's not correct. For example, List? is much more restrictive than a raw List (which is a ListObject). To a raw list you can add an instance of any type whatever, i.e., list.add(new Object()). But in List? the ? is a wildcard which says it could be any type there, i.e., it could be a ListInteger. But you can't add a new Object() to a ListInteger! Thus MarkupContainer? means MarkupContainer parameterized by some unknown type, and *not* MarkupContainer parameterized by Object, which is what the raw type means. Regards, Sebastiaan
Re: Using generics with some non-generic classes in Wicket
well, maybe you get used to warnings, i tend to do something about them and clean up my code. i do not want to turn this warning off, because as you said yourself it is a very useful warning, if i turn it off i might as well not be using generics... -igor On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 1:38 PM, Peter Ertl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In IDEA it is annoying when you enable inspection 'Raw use of parametrized class' which is generally quite useful it will complain on protected boolean isPageAuthorized(final Class? extends Page pageClass) so, no, you don't get a warning but a potentially useful inspection is more or less useless (warnings have no effect once you get used to them) Am 14.05.2008 um 22:29 schrieb Johan Compagner: how do users get in this situation a warning? if we as a framework say method(RawType type) then why would that give a warning in the caller method? We just say we accept raw type there johan On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 9:53 PM, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: then our users have to suppress warnings in their code, which is unacceptable at least to me. the whole generics thing turned out to be quiet a lot crappier then i thought it would. -igor On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 12:48 PM, Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: yes then all the call to that method must be of a generic type. cant be raw i dont know what are we going to do in wicket i think we should decide it should we just where we dont care about generic delete/not use the ? and then supresswarning? johan On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 9:45 PM, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: so i just implemented IAuthorizationStrategy and on this line in my class: public boolean isInstantiationAuthorized(Class ? extends Component componentClass) i get: Component is a raw type. References to generic type ComponentT should be parameterized so that means we have to change our sig to ? extends Component? but then we are back to the problem described in this thread. generics suck. -igor On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 12:12 AM, Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I dont think that user gets a warning if a param is of raw type. But we have a warning there. The problem is that for example MarkupContainer.add(Component) or IVisitor.visit(Component) i dont care what component is put in generified or not. In add it really doesnt matter because we dont do anything with it. With visitor it is different because the user could use it inside the method. But it should be useable without warnings for generified and none generfied components.. On 5/14/08, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: if we have a signature that accepts a raw type, will that also cause a warning in user's code? also having those suppress annotations practically _everywhere_ will be annoying -igor On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 11:56 PM, Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I dont care, because i cant do any thing with the ? The only thing it enforces is that it must now be a generic class which is annoying. Not to mention that in that area eclipse and javac accept different things So or we in wicket dont use ? any where and have supress warning everywhere for that or we do use it and then suddenly it is in my eyes restricted to much. On 5/14/08, Sebastiaan van Erk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Johan Compagner wrote: yes thats the reason you are calling the method add with a generified component but that container itself is not generified i dont like this about generics expecially the onces like this: add(MarkupContainer? container) then suddenly a none generified component cant be added... thats really stupid ? should mean anything.. including none generics No, that's not correct. For example, List? is much more restrictive than a raw List (which is a ListObject). To a raw list you can add an instance of any type whatever, i.e., list.add(new Object()). But in List? the ? is a wildcard which says it could be any type there, i.e., it could be a ListInteger. But you can't add a new Object() to a ListInteger! Thus MarkupContainer? means MarkupContainer parameterized by some unknown type, and *not* MarkupContainer parameterized by Object, which is what the raw type means. Regards, Sebastiaan johan On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 5:55 PM, Stefan Simik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have one idea, the reason of the warnigs is, that parent of AjaxPagingNavigator is PagingNavigator, which has parent Panel --- that is not parameterized. The same problem is with LoopItem, which extends the WebMarkupContainer --- that is not parameterized. ? could this be the reason ? Stefan Simik wrote: Mhmm, it is meaningful ;) I will know in future, thx One of the last occuring warning is, when working with MarkupContainer#add(...) or #addOrReplace(...) method. Example: I have a simple
Re: Using generics with some non-generic classes in Wicket
that's exactly what I am saying... It always pisses me off to see developers checking in code that delivers like 50-100 warnings and they don't care. warnings are a good thing. not so sure about generics (just kidding :-) Am 14.05.2008 um 22:41 schrieb Igor Vaynberg: well, maybe you get used to warnings, i tend to do something about them and clean up my code. i do not want to turn this warning off, because as you said yourself it is a very useful warning, if i turn it off i might as well not be using generics... -igor On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 1:38 PM, Peter Ertl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In IDEA it is annoying when you enable inspection 'Raw use of parametrized class' which is generally quite useful it will complain on protected boolean isPageAuthorized(final Class? extends Page pageClass) so, no, you don't get a warning but a potentially useful inspection is more or less useless (warnings have no effect once you get used to them) Am 14.05.2008 um 22:29 schrieb Johan Compagner: how do users get in this situation a warning? if we as a framework say method(RawType type) then why would that give a warning in the caller method? We just say we accept raw type there johan On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 9:53 PM, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: then our users have to suppress warnings in their code, which is unacceptable at least to me. the whole generics thing turned out to be quiet a lot crappier then i thought it would. -igor On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 12:48 PM, Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: yes then all the call to that method must be of a generic type. cant be raw i dont know what are we going to do in wicket i think we should decide it should we just where we dont care about generic delete/not use the ? and then supresswarning? johan On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 9:45 PM, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: so i just implemented IAuthorizationStrategy and on this line in my class: public boolean isInstantiationAuthorized(Class ? extends Component componentClass) i get: Component is a raw type. References to generic type ComponentT should be parameterized so that means we have to change our sig to ? extends Component? but then we are back to the problem described in this thread. generics suck. -igor On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 12:12 AM, Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I dont think that user gets a warning if a param is of raw type. But we have a warning there. The problem is that for example MarkupContainer.add(Component) or IVisitor.visit(Component) i dont care what component is put in generified or not. In add it really doesnt matter because we dont do anything with it. With visitor it is different because the user could use it inside the method. But it should be useable without warnings for generified and none generfied components.. On 5/14/08, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: if we have a signature that accepts a raw type, will that also cause a warning in user's code? also having those suppress annotations practically _everywhere_ will be annoying -igor On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 11:56 PM, Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I dont care, because i cant do any thing with the ? The only thing it enforces is that it must now be a generic class which is annoying. Not to mention that in that area eclipse and javac accept different things So or we in wicket dont use ? any where and have supress warning everywhere for that or we do use it and then suddenly it is in my eyes restricted to much. On 5/14/08, Sebastiaan van Erk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Johan Compagner wrote: yes thats the reason you are calling the method add with a generified component but that container itself is not generified i dont like this about generics expecially the onces like this: add(MarkupContainer? container) then suddenly a none generified component cant be added... thats really stupid ? should mean anything.. including none generics No, that's not correct. For example, List? is much more restrictive than a raw List (which is a ListObject). To a raw list you can add an instance of any type whatever, i.e., list.add(new Object()). But in List? the ? is a wildcard which says it could be any type there, i.e., it could be a ListInteger. But you can't add a new Object() to a ListInteger! Thus MarkupContainer? means MarkupContainer parameterized by some unknown type, and *not* MarkupContainer parameterized by Object, which is what the raw type means. Regards, Sebastiaan johan On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 5:55 PM, Stefan Simik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have one idea, the reason of the warnigs is, that parent of AjaxPagingNavigator is PagingNavigator, which has parent Panel --- that is not parameterized. The same problem is with LoopItem, which extends the WebMarkupContainer --- that is not
Re: Using generics with some non-generic classes in Wicket
Igor Vaynberg wrote: i do like generics. did i ever say otherwise? the problem here is that if we scope something as Class? extends Component then even though you ARE using generics in your code you will still get a warning because we did not scope the class as Class? extends Component?. on the other hand if we do scope it as Class? extends Component? then you can no longer pass a raw reference when calling the function. But that's exactly the point isn't it? If you're using generics then you shouldn't be using raw Components anymore... so we are screwed if we do and we are screwed if we dont, i expected generics to be better. Well they definitely could have been better (erasure is terrible if you ask me), but I don't see what's wrong in this case. It warns you if you should be using a parameterized type but you don't. And especially if you look at the vote result, I think the majority wants the generics... that vote was before we uncovered this issue. we voted on the idea of generics, not on the implementation. That's true, but I wonder if this issue would change the vote much. I don't really understand why it's an issue, because you can use generified Components always: ComponentObject if you don't want to constrain the model object, and ComponentVoid if you don't need a model. The question that started the thread was about StringResourceModel which was not yet generified, and in that case, the warning seems to me to be perfectly ok: it just says StringResourceModel should be generified. It's not a release yet, so that some users who use the current snapshot run into these kind of warnings which cannot be removed seems to be fine to me... Regards, Sebastiaan smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: Using generics with some non-generic classes in Wicket
the whole generics thing turned out to be quiet a lot crappier then i thought it would. :-) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FYI: new wicket site
Frank, Is there such a button (officially)? We just say Built on Apache Wicket at jWeekend. It's probably not a bad idea (from Wicket's perspective) to have an official image that can be used (or linked to), if there are no legal complications with Apache. Lars, Thanks for the link - it's always interesting to see what's going on in Wicketland; all the best with your venture. Regards - Cemal http://jWeekend.co.uk http://jWeekend.co.uk Frank Bille wrote: Very nice! But where is the Powered by Apache Wicket button? Frank On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 10:36 AM, lars vonk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all, A new Wicket site is born! It's a Dutch site on which you can search for day trips and such. See: www.eropuit.nl. Thanks to the user- and dev-group for answering any questions we had during the process. Lars - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/FYI%3A-new-wicket-site-tp17226228p17241227.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: Using generics with some non-generic classes in Wicket
since then the thread has evolved into whether or not we should use ? extends Component or ? extends Component? -igor On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 1:54 PM, Sebastiaan van Erk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Igor Vaynberg wrote: i do like generics. did i ever say otherwise? the problem here is that if we scope something as Class? extends Component then even though you ARE using generics in your code you will still get a warning because we did not scope the class as Class? extends Component?. on the other hand if we do scope it as Class? extends Component? then you can no longer pass a raw reference when calling the function. But that's exactly the point isn't it? If you're using generics then you shouldn't be using raw Components anymore... so we are screwed if we do and we are screwed if we dont, i expected generics to be better. Well they definitely could have been better (erasure is terrible if you ask me), but I don't see what's wrong in this case. It warns you if you should be using a parameterized type but you don't. And especially if you look at the vote result, I think the majority wants the generics... that vote was before we uncovered this issue. we voted on the idea of generics, not on the implementation. That's true, but I wonder if this issue would change the vote much. I don't really understand why it's an issue, because you can use generified Components always: ComponentObject if you don't want to constrain the model object, and ComponentVoid if you don't need a model. The question that started the thread was about StringResourceModel which was not yet generified, and in that case, the warning seems to me to be perfectly ok: it just says StringResourceModel should be generified. It's not a release yet, so that some users who use the current snapshot run into these kind of warnings which cannot be removed seems to be fine to me... Regards, Sebastiaan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: A question about IHeaderContributor
Well I made a new behavior, extending AbstractBehavior implementing IHeaderContributor. I gave this behavior a reference to the Form that might have errors, and I added the behavior to the Page on which the Form lives. In this case, the behavior's renderHead(...) is called as expected. I'm not going to open a JIRA because I'm not completely sure this is a bug and I can't easily switch to Wicket 1.3 to confirm that it still exists. The question though, is, can a Component implement IHeaderContributor successfully? On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 12:03 PM, Gerolf Seitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: gotcha, thx On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 6:40 PM, Eelco Hillenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you think it is a bug, please open a JIRA issue for it. didn't we EOL Wicket 1.2.x? http://martijndashorst.com/blog/2008/03/23/wicket-127-the-last-maintenance-release/ Yeah, I actually meant for Wicket 1.3 and up, because the bug is in there as well. Eelco - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Using generics with some non-generic classes in Wicket
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 2:25 PM, Eelco Hillenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: the whole generics thing turned out to be quiet a lot crappier then i thought it would. :-) Generics for models: great. Generics for components: awful. Too bad that stuff is contagious. Eelco - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Using generics with some non-generic classes in Wicket
wicket 1.6 = scala-based ? *lol* Am 14.05.2008 um 23:28 schrieb Eelco Hillenius: On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 2:25 PM, Eelco Hillenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: the whole generics thing turned out to be quiet a lot crappier then i thought it would. :-) Generics for models: great. Generics for components: awful. Too bad that stuff is contagious. Eelco - 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: Using generics with some non-generic classes in Wicket
Igor Vaynberg wrote: since then the thread has evolved into whether or not we should use ? extends Component or ? extends Component? -igor I don't understand how that changes any of my points. The first is incorrect (from a generics point of view) since you're referencing an unparameterized generic type. So the second gives warnings only in code that is not properly generified... Regards, Sebastiaan On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 1:54 PM, Sebastiaan van Erk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Igor Vaynberg wrote: i do like generics. did i ever say otherwise? the problem here is that if we scope something as Class? extends Component then even though you ARE using generics in your code you will still get a warning because we did not scope the class as Class? extends Component?. on the other hand if we do scope it as Class? extends Component? then you can no longer pass a raw reference when calling the function. But that's exactly the point isn't it? If you're using generics then you shouldn't be using raw Components anymore... so we are screwed if we do and we are screwed if we dont, i expected generics to be better. Well they definitely could have been better (erasure is terrible if you ask me), but I don't see what's wrong in this case. It warns you if you should be using a parameterized type but you don't. And especially if you look at the vote result, I think the majority wants the generics... that vote was before we uncovered this issue. we voted on the idea of generics, not on the implementation. That's true, but I wonder if this issue would change the vote much. I don't really understand why it's an issue, because you can use generified Components always: ComponentObject if you don't want to constrain the model object, and ComponentVoid if you don't need a model. The question that started the thread was about StringResourceModel which was not yet generified, and in that case, the warning seems to me to be perfectly ok: it just says StringResourceModel should be generified. It's not a release yet, so that some users who use the current snapshot run into these kind of warnings which cannot be removed seems to be fine to me... Regards, Sebastiaan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: Using generics with some non-generic classes in Wicket
yeah, generics are pretty damn viral -igor On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 2:28 PM, Eelco Hillenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 2:25 PM, Eelco Hillenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: the whole generics thing turned out to be quiet a lot crappier then i thought it would. :-) Generics for models: great. Generics for components: awful. Too bad that stuff is contagious. Eelco - 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: Using generics with some non-generic classes in Wicket
well, apparently johan ran into a situation where component? is too restrictive... -igor On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Sebastiaan van Erk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Igor Vaynberg wrote: since then the thread has evolved into whether or not we should use ? extends Component or ? extends Component? -igor I don't understand how that changes any of my points. The first is incorrect (from a generics point of view) since you're referencing an unparameterized generic type. So the second gives warnings only in code that is not properly generified... Regards, Sebastiaan On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 1:54 PM, Sebastiaan van Erk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Igor Vaynberg wrote: i do like generics. did i ever say otherwise? the problem here is that if we scope something as Class? extends Component then even though you ARE using generics in your code you will still get a warning because we did not scope the class as Class? extends Component?. on the other hand if we do scope it as Class? extends Component? then you can no longer pass a raw reference when calling the function. But that's exactly the point isn't it? If you're using generics then you shouldn't be using raw Components anymore... so we are screwed if we do and we are screwed if we dont, i expected generics to be better. Well they definitely could have been better (erasure is terrible if you ask me), but I don't see what's wrong in this case. It warns you if you should be using a parameterized type but you don't. And especially if you look at the vote result, I think the majority wants the generics... that vote was before we uncovered this issue. we voted on the idea of generics, not on the implementation. That's true, but I wonder if this issue would change the vote much. I don't really understand why it's an issue, because you can use generified Components always: ComponentObject if you don't want to constrain the model object, and ComponentVoid if you don't need a model. The question that started the thread was about StringResourceModel which was not yet generified, and in that case, the warning seems to me to be perfectly ok: it just says StringResourceModel should be generified. It's not a release yet, so that some users who use the current snapshot run into these kind of warnings which cannot be removed seems to be fine to me... Regards, Sebastiaan - 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: Using generics with some non-generic classes in Wicket
i think something similar happend to me with Model.valueOf(Map), so i had to change it back to return Model instead of Model? Gerolf On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 11:41 PM, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: well, apparently johan ran into a situation where component? is too restrictive... -igor On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Sebastiaan van Erk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Igor Vaynberg wrote: since then the thread has evolved into whether or not we should use ? extends Component or ? extends Component? -igor I don't understand how that changes any of my points. The first is incorrect (from a generics point of view) since you're referencing an unparameterized generic type. So the second gives warnings only in code that is not properly generified... Regards, Sebastiaan On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 1:54 PM, Sebastiaan van Erk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Igor Vaynberg wrote: i do like generics. did i ever say otherwise? the problem here is that if we scope something as Class? extends Component then even though you ARE using generics in your code you will still get a warning because we did not scope the class as Class? extends Component?. on the other hand if we do scope it as Class? extends Component? then you can no longer pass a raw reference when calling the function. But that's exactly the point isn't it? If you're using generics then you shouldn't be using raw Components anymore... so we are screwed if we do and we are screwed if we dont, i expected generics to be better. Well they definitely could have been better (erasure is terrible if you ask me), but I don't see what's wrong in this case. It warns you if you should be using a parameterized type but you don't. And especially if you look at the vote result, I think the majority wants the generics... that vote was before we uncovered this issue. we voted on the idea of generics, not on the implementation. That's true, but I wonder if this issue would change the vote much. I don't really understand why it's an issue, because you can use generified Components always: ComponentObject if you don't want to constrain the model object, and ComponentVoid if you don't need a model. The question that started the thread was about StringResourceModel which was not yet generified, and in that case, the warning seems to me to be perfectly ok: it just says StringResourceModel should be generified. It's not a release yet, so that some users who use the current snapshot run into these kind of warnings which cannot be removed seems to be fine to me... Regards, Sebastiaan - 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]
RequiredBorder being applied multiple times in ajax calls
Using the tips in this PDF
http://londonwicket.org/content/LondonWicket-FormsWithFlair.pdf
I created the simple RequiredBorder class as follows:
public class RequiredBorder extends MarkupComponentBorder {
public void renderAfter(Component component) {
FormComponent fc = (FormComponent) component;
if (fc.isRequired()) {
super.renderAfter(component);
}
}
}
This basically adds a * after any required fields. It seemed to
work great until I used it with an ajax phone formatter behavior:
new AjaxFormComponentUpdatingBehavior(onchange) {
protected void onUpdate(AjaxRequestTarget target) {
Object oldValue = component.getValue();
String formatted = new PhoneFormatter().format(oldValue);
component.setModelObject(formatted);
target.addComponent(component);
}
}
This caused duplicate * indicators to appear after my phone field
when the phone number changed, one per onchange request. I tried
adding a boolean field to the RequiredBorder so it only gets
processed once. This fixed the phone formatter duplicates, but if
the form submits and stays on the same page, all the * marks
disappear from the required fields.
This is definitely some sort of lifecycle problem, but how do you fix
it?
On a related note, is it generally a bad idea to mix AJAX and non-
ajax actions? It seems like this is one of many issues I've run into
when doing this.
Thanks,
-Sam Barnum
Re: Why Localizer Retained so many heapsize?
Maybe you're right.
Yesterday I deployed the application in a high load with a little fewer
heapsize than the usual setting to see whether the same thing happened
again,
and now the heapsize usage increase little by little. the Full GC interval
becomes shorter. I'm sure that several hours later.
I deeply explore the cache key and value; as you said, some thing with same
value but different key's store in the cache.
like:
first :
woodPr_lab-com.wedomo.webgame.fbm3guo.wicket.reuse.ResourcePanel:resourcepanel-com.wedomo.webgame.fbm3guo.wicket.pages.map.MapSmall:4-zh_CN-null
产量：
ironPr_lab-com.wedomo.webgame.fbm3guo.wicket.reuse.ResourcePanel:resourcepanel-com.wedomo.webgame.fbm3guo.wicket.pages.map.MapSmall:4-zh_CN-null
产量：
cropPr_lab-com.wedomo.webgame.fbm3guo.wicket.reuse.ResourcePanel:resourcepanel-com.wedomo.webgame.fbm3guo.wicket.pages.map.MapSmall:4-zh_CN-null
产量：
later:
woodPr_lab-com.wedomo.webgame.fbm3guo.wicket.reuse.ResourcePanel:resourcepanel-com.wedomo.webgame.fbm3guo.wicket.pages.map.MapSmall:6-zh_CN-null
产量：
ironPr_lab-com.wedomo.webgame.fbm3guo.wicket.reuse.ResourcePanel:resourcepanel-com.wedomo.webgame.fbm3guo.wicket.pages.map.MapSmall:6-zh_CN-null
产量：
cropPr_lab-com.wedomo.webgame.fbm3guo.wicket.reuse.ResourcePanel:resourcepanel-com.wedomo.webgame.fbm3guo.wicket.pages.map.MapSmall:6-zh_CN-null
产量：
the only difference is PageId . the source code of Locailzer.getCacheKey
tells
//
for(Component cursor = component; cursor != null; cursor =
cursor.getParent())
{
buffer.append(-).append(cursor.getClass().getName());
buffer.append(:).append(cursor.getId());
}
so is the cursor.getId() useful when it represents a repeater? and whether i
can remove it when it represents the page class?
that would really reduce the cacheKey number I think.
Johan, could you show me the code you fix with this problem please?
Thanks for your great help!
2008/5/14 Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
i fixed something in the localizer that it doesnt add the page id to the
cachekey string
that was your problem
everypage that was created also creates an localizer entry that is just
plain wrong.
So the pageid is not in the path anymore.. i think this is what really
caused your constant growing cache
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 5:04 PM, Quan Zhou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes , it would be a bit slower. I'm going to make more test to see what
havn't store in cache.
Maybe i can caculate how many percents it effect my application
performance
after i deploy it in a high load circumstance.
I'm not sure about what you said about your fix for not including page.
can you make it some clear? thanks very much.
2008/5/14 Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
ok so you dont store the tested cacheKey 's that returned null..
so that could result in a bit slower access because it is tried to
resolve
everytime
I do think that my fix for not including the page is solving your real
mem
leak problem
johan
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 2:03 PM, Quan Zhou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
getResourceSettings().setLocalizer(new Localizer() {
@Override
public void putIntoCache(final String cacheKey,final
String
string) {
if (string != null cacheKey!=null)
super.putIntoCache(cacheKey, string);
}
});
2008/5/14 Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
but what did you do there in that method?
nothing? you dont cache anything anymore?
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 10:29 AM, Quan Zhou [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hello everyone.
I override Localizer.putIntoCache method. and it really reduce
the
heapsize
usage of Localizer.
The application is more stable now although the key remains
large.
Hope we can find a way to shorter the key length.
thanks everyone.
2008/5/13 Eirik Rude [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
A soft reference is very common for this type of thing. I know
some
of
ICU's
resources are stored this way.
Jonathan Locke wrote:
maybe localizer should limit its size or use a soft reference
cache?
Johan Compagner wrote:
Can you really see what it holds?
Almost 2G in memory in localizer is extreme... Thats really
a
lot
of
strings..
You could try to read that dump with yourkit if your current
one
doesnt show enough.
On 5/9/08, Quan Zhou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello everyone.
I recently develop my App use Wicket1.3.3. It's my first
time
to
use
this
framework and I feel it's really really a perfect framework
for
me.
My app support both Simplified Chinese , Traditional
