strange links

[Tomasz Prus]

I have links like this



in page source. My boss wants i remove these dots.

Can anyone help me ?

Re: Form validators expand in a ListView per each refresh

[Martin Makundi]

Will wicket approve if I say the nested form is a  tag? Should it care?

**
Martin

2008/6/6 Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> html doesnt approve of embedded forms, but wicket does. it will just work.
>
> -igor
>
> On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 12:36 PM, Martin Makundi
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Tnx. I had form->listview->item->formcomponents,formvalidators
>>
>> Should the embedded forms be renderBodyOnly?
>>
>> I think HTML does not approve embedded forms, does it? So should I
>> tweak this using renderBodyOnly or similar?
>>
>> **
>> Martin
>>
>> 2008/6/5 Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>> you should use embedded forms
>>>
>>> form->listview->item->form+formvalidators->formcomponents
>>>
>>> instead of
>>>
>>> form+formvalidators->listview->item->formcomponents
>>>
>>> -igor
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 7:55 AM, Martin Makundi
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 I use setReuseitems true yes.

 I must call the removeAll because my models have changed (I am
 rendering a table and the table structure / colspan / rowspan /
 elements changes). I have not found another way to update the markup
 than calling removeAll.

 Now, the removeAll should probably remove all the IFormValidators for
 the elements too? Currently there is no external method for removing
 the validators, it should be automatic.

 **
 Martin

 2008/6/5 Maurice Marrink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Can't you use setReuseItems(true), that way the populate method will
> be called less frequently and thus will generate less validators.
> Don't use the removeall in combination with the reuse that will negate
> the effect :)
>
> Maurice
>
> On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 3:57 PM, Martin Makundi
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> The only workaround I came up with is as follows:
>>  public void validate(Form form) {
>>if (!form.contains(selectionField, true)) {
>>  return;
>>}
>> ...
>> }
>>
>> It is not elegant and the stack keeps growing. I first tried to remove
>> the validator if it exists, but that brought up some nasty threading
>> issues ;)
>>
>> Anybody know if it is a "feature" or a "bug" that the form validator
>> stack keeps piling up those validators after each submit -
>> specifically comes up in double-or-triple-submit-click situations.
>>
>> **
>> Martin
>>
>>
>>
>> 2008/6/5 Martin Makundi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> I have a Form whose components are populated using a listView.
>>>
>>> Each listView component has a formValidator.
>>>
>>> Now each time I refresh the listview it is redrawn and all the new
>>> validators are newly added to the form in addition to the existing
>>> validators (from the previous refresh).
>>>
>>> For example, the screen has 5 items but when I debug the form I can
>>> see 65 validators hanging out there and giving false alarms ;)
>>>
>>> In my experience I must use listView.removeAll to assure that the
>>> listview is re-rendered. modelChanged does not seem to have the
>>> desirable effect.
>>>
>>> What is the proper pattern to clean the form listview validators?
>>>
>>> **
>>> Martin
>>>
>>
>> -
>> 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]
>>>
>>>
>>
>> -
>> 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: Does StringResourceModel honor container's key (rather than its own ?)

[James Carman]

I would suggest starting from a "quickstart" application and adding in
the code that illustrates this issue.  If you can come up with
something that you think is a bug, file a JIRA issue.

On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 5:42 PM, smallufo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/6/6 James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> Show some code.  What is "this" at the point you're instantiating SRM?
>>
>
> The following codes are written in MyPanel's constructor:
>
> collapseExpandText = new Label("collapseExpandText");
> collapseExpandText.setOutputMarkupPlaceholderTag(true);
> if (checkGroup.isVisible())
>  collapseExpandText.setModel(new StringResourceModel("collapse" , this ,
> null));
> else
>  collapseExpandText.setModel(new StringResourceModel("expand" , this ,
> null));
>
> Both my panel and it containing WebPage have "collapse" and "expand" key
> (but with different values).
> But it only shows WebPage's values , not its own values.
> I tried to change "collapse"/"expand" to another key , ex : "collapseX" ,
> "expandX" ,
> and edit the corresponding MyPanel's properties keys ,
> it then shows MyPanel's values , not WebPage.
>
> So , I am sure , StringResourceModel honors its container's key , not its
> own.
> Is it intentional ?
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 4:29 PM, smallufo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I have a Web Page , containing a Panel , both components have the same key
>> in each property files (but with different values).
>> I found in the Panel , when calling
>> new StringResourceModel("key" , this , null) ,
>> it will return Page's key value , not its own value .
>> Is it intentional ? or a bug ?
>>
>> Wicket 1.3.3
>>
>
> -
>> 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: (Class>) casting troubles

[Rod Good]

Thanks Jeremy, that definitely looks like the problem. 

-Original Message-
From: Jeremy Thomerson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, 6 June 2008 1:01 PM
To: users@wicket.apache.org
Subject: Re: (Class>) casting troubles

I haven't read the whole thread, but you should be fine as long as your
returned page class uses generics...

Here's what I use in one app, no warnings, no casts:

@Override
public Class> getHomePage() {
return Home.class;
}


public class Home extends WebPage { }

--
Jeremy Thomerson
http://www.wickettraining.com

On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 9:05 PM, Rod Good <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Thanks Peter (and Martin and Larry).
>
> My issue was specifically with overriding
>
> Class> getHomePage()
>
> from the Application class, when extending
AuthenticatedWebApplication.
>
> It looks the same as the problem below, but not quite...
>
> Is there an idiom for overriding getHomePage() in Wicket 1.4 ? I'm 
> getting around it with a shocking cast, I'm sure others have run into 
> the same problem.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Peter Ertl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, 4 June 2008 6:32 PM
> To: users@wicket.apache.org
> Subject: Re: (Class>) casting troubles
>
> I remember that having more than one wildcard in an type expression 
> seems to be inherently broken.
>
> Usually you can rewrite something like
>
>   void foo(Class> pageClass)
>
> into something like
>
>   > void foo(Class pageClass)
>
> I would bet this solves your problem :-)
>
> However, nobody can explain why... :-(
>
> Probably some lack of the generics specification, broken compiler, or 
> whatever...
>
> I would suggest to avoid more than one wildcard in one type expression

> in general and use above workaround.
>
> Cheers
> Peter
>
>
> Am 04.06.2008 um 10:10 schrieb Johan Compagner:
>
> > Yeah it is very strange that you get different errors in eclipse and

> > javac.
> > I wonder which one is correcct..
> >
> > But you have to generify the Page then it should work fine (like
> > )
> >
> > I think we just need to drop the  in that example What do you 
> > exactly call?
> >
> >
> > johan
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 9:39 AM, Rod Good <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I'm getting inconvertible type errors when I compile from Maven on 
> >> the command line with Java 6.
> >>
> >> Does anyone know if this issue was resolved ? I am building against
> >> 1.4-m2 - downloaded today (04-06-2008).
> >>
> >> The issue is the same as noted by Ryan Mckinley on 05/21/2008 :
> >>
> >>>
> >>> strangely, things work fine for me in eclipse, but from the 
> >>> command
> >> line, I still get:
> >>>
> >>> $ mvn clean install:
> >>>
> >>>
> >> /Users/ryan/Documents/workspace/dexter/website/src/java/dexter/
> >> website/
> >> wicket/page/DownloadingPage.java:[18,97] inconvertible types found
:
> >> java.lang.Class
> >> required: java.lang.Class>
> >>>
> >>> I ran: mvn clean install in the wicket directory...
> >>>
> >>> Not sure if the java version is helpful: ryan$ mvn -version Maven
> >> version: 2.0.6 ryan$ javac -version javac 1.6.0_04-dp
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Rod.
> >>
> >> NOTICE
> >> This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may contain 
> >> copyright material of Macquarie Group Limited or third parties. If 
> >> you are not the intended recipient of this email you should not 
> >> read,
>
> >> print, re- transmit, store or act in reliance on this e-mail or any

> >> attachments, and should destroy all copies of them. Macquarie Group

> >> Limited does not guarantee the integrity of any emails or any 
> >> attached files. The views or opinions expressed are the author's 
> >> own and may not reflect the views or opinions of Macquarie Group
Limited.
> >>
> >>
>
>
> -
> 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: (Class>) casting troubles

[Jeremy Thomerson]

I haven't read the whole thread, but you should be fine as long as your
returned page class uses generics...

Here's what I use in one app, no warnings, no casts:

@Override
public Class> getHomePage() {
return Home.class;
}


public class Home extends WebPage {
}

-- 
Jeremy Thomerson
http://www.wickettraining.com

On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 9:05 PM, Rod Good <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Thanks Peter (and Martin and Larry).
>
> My issue was specifically with overriding
>
> Class> getHomePage()
>
> from the Application class, when extending AuthenticatedWebApplication.
>
> It looks the same as the problem below, but not quite...
>
> Is there an idiom for overriding getHomePage() in Wicket 1.4 ? I'm
> getting around it with a shocking cast, I'm sure others have run into
> the same problem.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Peter Ertl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, 4 June 2008 6:32 PM
> To: users@wicket.apache.org
> Subject: Re: (Class>) casting troubles
>
> I remember that having more than one wildcard in an type expression
> seems to be inherently broken.
>
> Usually you can rewrite something like
>
>   void foo(Class> pageClass)
>
> into something like
>
>   > void foo(Class pageClass)
>
> I would bet this solves your problem :-)
>
> However, nobody can explain why... :-(
>
> Probably some lack of the generics specification, broken compiler, or
> whatever...
>
> I would suggest to avoid more than one wildcard in one type expression
> in general and use above workaround.
>
> Cheers
> Peter
>
>
> Am 04.06.2008 um 10:10 schrieb Johan Compagner:
>
> > Yeah it is very strange that you get different errors in eclipse and
> > javac.
> > I wonder which one is correcct..
> >
> > But you have to generify the Page then it should work fine (like
> > )
> >
> > I think we just need to drop the  in that example What do you
> > exactly call?
> >
> >
> > johan
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 9:39 AM, Rod Good <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I'm getting inconvertible type errors when I compile from Maven on
> >> the command line with Java 6.
> >>
> >> Does anyone know if this issue was resolved ? I am building against
> >> 1.4-m2 - downloaded today (04-06-2008).
> >>
> >> The issue is the same as noted by Ryan Mckinley on 05/21/2008 :
> >>
> >>>
> >>> strangely, things work fine for me in eclipse, but from the command
> >> line, I still get:
> >>>
> >>> $ mvn clean install:
> >>>
> >>>
> >> /Users/ryan/Documents/workspace/dexter/website/src/java/dexter/
> >> website/
> >> wicket/page/DownloadingPage.java:[18,97] inconvertible types found :
> >> java.lang.Class
> >> required: java.lang.Class>
> >>>
> >>> I ran: mvn clean install in the wicket directory...
> >>>
> >>> Not sure if the java version is helpful: ryan$ mvn -version Maven
> >> version: 2.0.6 ryan$ javac -version javac 1.6.0_04-dp
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Rod.
> >>
> >> NOTICE
> >> This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may contain
> >> copyright material of Macquarie Group Limited or third parties. If
> >> you are not the intended recipient of this email you should not read,
>
> >> print, re- transmit, store or act in reliance on this e-mail or any
> >> attachments, and should destroy all copies of them. Macquarie Group
> >> Limited does not guarantee the integrity of any emails or any
> >> attached files. The views or opinions expressed are the author's own
> >> and may not reflect the views or opinions of Macquarie Group Limited.
> >>
> >>
>
>
> -
> 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]
>
>

very slow autocomplete box in IE6

[Rod Good]

Hi,
 
I have a default  AutoCompleteTextField on a form which is executing
extremely slowly for the up / down arrow cursors when I run it in IE6.
 
The getChoices() method is implemented efficiently, using a TreeMap and
the tailMap() method to avoid iterating over the whole map. Worst case
is 10 iterations to load the choices.
 
When I run this in FireFox 2.x , the up / down arrow keys are super
fast, but IE6 goes to 100% cpu. It's definitely something IE6 is doing. 
 
Any thoughts ? Wicket is 1.3-SNAPSHOT, Java 6.0.4, IE 6.0.29 SP 2.
 
Thanks,
Rod.

NOTICE
This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may contain copyright 
material of Macquarie Group Limited or third parties. If you are not the 
intended recipient of this email you should not read, print, re-transmit, store 
or act in reliance on this e-mail or any attachments, and should destroy all 
copies of them. Macquarie Group Limited does not guarantee the integrity of any 
emails or any attached files. The views or opinions expressed are the author's 
own and may not reflect the views or opinions of Macquarie Group Limited.

RE: (Class>) casting troubles

[Rod Good]

Thanks Peter (and Martin and Larry). 

My issue was specifically with overriding 

Class> getHomePage() 

from the Application class, when extending AuthenticatedWebApplication. 

It looks the same as the problem below, but not quite... 

Is there an idiom for overriding getHomePage() in Wicket 1.4 ? I'm
getting around it with a shocking cast, I'm sure others have run into
the same problem.

-Original Message-
From: Peter Ertl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, 4 June 2008 6:32 PM
To: users@wicket.apache.org
Subject: Re: (Class>) casting troubles

I remember that having more than one wildcard in an type expression
seems to be inherently broken.

Usually you can rewrite something like

   void foo(Class> pageClass)

into something like

   > void foo(Class pageClass)

I would bet this solves your problem :-)

However, nobody can explain why... :-(

Probably some lack of the generics specification, broken compiler, or
whatever...

I would suggest to avoid more than one wildcard in one type expression
in general and use above workaround.

Cheers
Peter


Am 04.06.2008 um 10:10 schrieb Johan Compagner:

> Yeah it is very strange that you get different errors in eclipse and 
> javac.
> I wonder which one is correcct..
>
> But you have to generify the Page then it should work fine (like
> )
>
> I think we just need to drop the  in that example What do you 
> exactly call?
>
>
> johan
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 9:39 AM, Rod Good <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm getting inconvertible type errors when I compile from Maven on 
>> the command line with Java 6.
>>
>> Does anyone know if this issue was resolved ? I am building against
>> 1.4-m2 - downloaded today (04-06-2008).
>>
>> The issue is the same as noted by Ryan Mckinley on 05/21/2008 :
>>
>>>
>>> strangely, things work fine for me in eclipse, but from the command
>> line, I still get:
>>>
>>> $ mvn clean install:
>>>
>>>
>> /Users/ryan/Documents/workspace/dexter/website/src/java/dexter/
>> website/
>> wicket/page/DownloadingPage.java:[18,97] inconvertible types found :
>> java.lang.Class
>> required: java.lang.Class>
>>>
>>> I ran: mvn clean install in the wicket directory...
>>>
>>> Not sure if the java version is helpful: ryan$ mvn -version Maven
>> version: 2.0.6 ryan$ javac -version javac 1.6.0_04-dp
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Rod.
>>
>> NOTICE
>> This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may contain 
>> copyright material of Macquarie Group Limited or third parties. If 
>> you are not the intended recipient of this email you should not read,

>> print, re- transmit, store or act in reliance on this e-mail or any 
>> attachments, and should destroy all copies of them. Macquarie Group 
>> Limited does not guarantee the integrity of any emails or any 
>> attached files. The views or opinions expressed are the author's own 
>> and may not reflect the views or opinions of Macquarie Group Limited.
>>
>>


-
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]

Issues with Bookmarkable targets

[David Leangen]

I've been stepping through the code, but I'm having a tough time
figuring this one out...

Using 1.3.

I have one page mounted on:

  /mount1

And another mounted on:

  /mount1/tree

On the /mount1/tree page, I have a tree component.

Problem is that whenever I click on a node in the tree, I am taken to:

 /mount1/mount1

Which is obviously a problem. :-)

Even when I explicitly use setPageResponse using the current page as my
parameter in onNodeLinkClicked, the problem persists. So there seems to
be some kind of problem handling the target.

Any hints would be really appreciated.


Thank you!
David




-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Wizard Form problems in IE

[Michael Laccetti]

I've implemented a Wizard that uses dynamic steps to process things based on
user input.  Everything works under Firefox, but when I started testing in
IE I've noticed that the next/back button do not seem to do anything. The
form is posted, but the same step is rendered.  I turned on debug logging,
to see if anything was amiss, but cannot find any mention of a problem.  I
added breakpoints in the code to the next button's on click method, but it
doesn't seem to get triggered.  Any ideas?

Mike

-
--
Michael Laccetti (416)558-9718
S2G Limited   http://www.s2g.ca/
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/Wizard-Form-problems-in-IE-tp17681740p17681740.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: RequestLogger - AtomicInteger change

[Johan Compagner]

fixed

On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 11:40 PM, Jeremy Thomerson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

> Also, if one int was changed to AtomicInteger, shouldn't the rest also?
> It's obviously a concurrency issue.
>
> --
> Jeremy Thomerson
> http://www.wickettraining.com
>
> On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 4:38 PM, Jeremy Thomerson <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > If you enable the default request logger (in 1.4-*), it throws a
> > NullPointerException.
> >
> > The problem comes from this commit from Johan:
> >
> >
> http://fisheye6.atlassian.com/browse/wicket/trunk/wicket/src/main/java/org/apache/wicket/protocol/http/RequestLogger.java?r1=646020&r2=646810
> >
> > The field "active" was changed from an int to an AtomicInteger.  Just
> > changing that line to instantiate a new AtomicInteger should fix it.
> >
> > --
> > Jeremy Thomerson
> > http://www.wickettraining.com
>

Re: Does StringResourceModel honor container's key (rather than its own ?)

[smallufo]

2008/6/6 James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> Show some code.  What is "this" at the point you're instantiating SRM?
>

The following codes are written in MyPanel's constructor:

collapseExpandText = new Label("collapseExpandText");
collapseExpandText.setOutputMarkupPlaceholderTag(true);
if (checkGroup.isVisible())
  collapseExpandText.setModel(new StringResourceModel("collapse" , this ,
null));
else
  collapseExpandText.setModel(new StringResourceModel("expand" , this ,
null));

Both my panel and it containing WebPage have "collapse" and "expand" key
(but with different values).
But it only shows WebPage's values , not its own values.
I tried to change "collapse"/"expand" to another key , ex : "collapseX" ,
"expandX" ,
and edit the corresponding MyPanel's properties keys ,
it then shows MyPanel's values , not WebPage.

So , I am sure , StringResourceModel honors its container's key , not its
own.
Is it intentional ?


On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 4:29 PM, smallufo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have a Web Page , containing a Panel , both components have the same key
> in each property files (but with different values).
> I found in the Panel , when calling
> new StringResourceModel("key" , this , null) ,
> it will return Page's key value , not its own value .
> Is it intentional ? or a bug ?
>
> Wicket 1.3.3
>

-
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>

Re: RequestLogger - AtomicInteger change

[Jeremy Thomerson]

Also, if one int was changed to AtomicInteger, shouldn't the rest also?
It's obviously a concurrency issue.

-- 
Jeremy Thomerson
http://www.wickettraining.com

On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 4:38 PM, Jeremy Thomerson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

> If you enable the default request logger (in 1.4-*), it throws a
> NullPointerException.
>
> The problem comes from this commit from Johan:
>
> http://fisheye6.atlassian.com/browse/wicket/trunk/wicket/src/main/java/org/apache/wicket/protocol/http/RequestLogger.java?r1=646020&r2=646810
>
> The field "active" was changed from an int to an AtomicInteger.  Just
> changing that line to instantiate a new AtomicInteger should fix it.
>
> --
> Jeremy Thomerson
> http://www.wickettraining.com

RequestLogger - AtomicInteger change

[Jeremy Thomerson]

If you enable the default request logger (in 1.4-*), it throws a
NullPointerException.

The problem comes from this commit from Johan:
http://fisheye6.atlassian.com/browse/wicket/trunk/wicket/src/main/java/org/apache/wicket/protocol/http/RequestLogger.java?r1=646020&r2=646810

The field "active" was changed from an int to an AtomicInteger.  Just
changing that line to instantiate a new AtomicInteger should fix it.

-- 
Jeremy Thomerson
http://www.wickettraining.com

Re: Does StringResourceModel honor container's key (rather than its own ?)

[James Carman]

Show some code.  What is "this" at the point you're instantiating SRM?


On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 4:29 PM, smallufo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have a Web Page , containing a Panel , both components have the same key
> in each property files (but with different values).
> I found in the Panel , when calling
> new StringResourceModel("key" , this , null) ,
> it will return Page's key value , not its own value .
> Is it intentional ? or a bug ?
>
> Wicket 1.3.3
>

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Form validators expand in a ListView per each refresh

[Igor Vaynberg]

html doesnt approve of embedded forms, but wicket does. it will just work.

-igor

On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 12:36 PM, Martin Makundi
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tnx. I had form->listview->item->formcomponents,formvalidators
>
> Should the embedded forms be renderBodyOnly?
>
> I think HTML does not approve embedded forms, does it? So should I
> tweak this using renderBodyOnly or similar?
>
> **
> Martin
>
> 2008/6/5 Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> you should use embedded forms
>>
>> form->listview->item->form+formvalidators->formcomponents
>>
>> instead of
>>
>> form+formvalidators->listview->item->formcomponents
>>
>> -igor
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 7:55 AM, Martin Makundi
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I use setReuseitems true yes.
>>>
>>> I must call the removeAll because my models have changed (I am
>>> rendering a table and the table structure / colspan / rowspan /
>>> elements changes). I have not found another way to update the markup
>>> than calling removeAll.
>>>
>>> Now, the removeAll should probably remove all the IFormValidators for
>>> the elements too? Currently there is no external method for removing
>>> the validators, it should be automatic.
>>>
>>> **
>>> Martin
>>>
>>> 2008/6/5 Maurice Marrink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
 Can't you use setReuseItems(true), that way the populate method will
 be called less frequently and thus will generate less validators.
 Don't use the removeall in combination with the reuse that will negate
 the effect :)

 Maurice

 On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 3:57 PM, Martin Makundi
 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> The only workaround I came up with is as follows:
>  public void validate(Form form) {
>if (!form.contains(selectionField, true)) {
>  return;
>}
> ...
> }
>
> It is not elegant and the stack keeps growing. I first tried to remove
> the validator if it exists, but that brought up some nasty threading
> issues ;)
>
> Anybody know if it is a "feature" or a "bug" that the form validator
> stack keeps piling up those validators after each submit -
> specifically comes up in double-or-triple-submit-click situations.
>
> **
> Martin
>
>
>
> 2008/6/5 Martin Makundi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Hi!
>>
>> I have a Form whose components are populated using a listView.
>>
>> Each listView component has a formValidator.
>>
>> Now each time I refresh the listview it is redrawn and all the new
>> validators are newly added to the form in addition to the existing
>> validators (from the previous refresh).
>>
>> For example, the screen has 5 items but when I debug the form I can
>> see 65 validators hanging out there and giving false alarms ;)
>>
>> In my experience I must use listView.removeAll to assure that the
>> listview is re-rendered. modelChanged does not seem to have the
>> desirable effect.
>>
>> What is the proper pattern to clean the form listview validators?
>>
>> **
>> Martin
>>
>
> -
> 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]
>>
>>
>
> -
> 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]

Stateless AutoComplete

[nate roe]

I'm using Wicket 1.2, and it appears that when a user's session times out,
my implementation of AbstractAutoCompleteTextRenderer stops working.  I
assume that when the session times out, the server returns errors and the
partial page update fails.

I would like to know if there is a good way to make this behavior stateless,
so that no session is required.  I would also like to know if this changes
in Wicket 1.3.  I know that StatelessForm is introduced.  Would adding this
renderer to a component which is a child of a StatelessForm cause the
renderer to also become stateless?

Thanks,
Nate

Does StringResourceModel honor container's key (rather than its own ?)

[smallufo]

I have a Web Page , containing a Panel , both components have the same key
in each property files (but with different values).
I found in the Panel , when calling
new StringResourceModel("key" , this , null) ,
it will return Page's key value , not its own value .
Is it intentional ? or a bug ?

Wicket 1.3.3

Re: How can I customize Autocomplete?

[taygolf]

I am bumping this because this is an issue I know people are interested in. I
am not the only one wanting the choices for autocomplete to be shown on a
null value. I know technically you have this fixed in 1.4-m2 but you still
have to press the down arrow. I would like the choices to show up
automatically which I am sure is what most users wanting this feature want
as well. please respond and help me customize my settings to do this or
please add this feature in the next release

Thanks

T



taygolf wrote:
> 
> Hey everyone. I am wanting to customize autocomplete textfield a little
> and I am not sure what I need to do to get the behavior I would like. I am
> using the 1.4-m2 jars for my development because I am really wanting the
> choices to show up with an empty textfield.
> 
> Basically I would like the Div to be visible at all times. So when the
> page is created you would see the textfield as well as the div with all
> the choices listed below it. The user can then type in the textfield to
> narrow down the choices or simply choose from the list of choices.
> 
> I have implemented autocompletesettings and I have set
> showlistonemptyinput to true but you still have to physically click on the
> textfield and press the down arrow to get the list to show. This is going
> to confuse my users and they will not get it at all.
> 
> So is there a way to show the list at all times without having to press
> the down arrow. Is there something I can do on my end that can make this
> happen or is this a new feature that needs to be added? I have talked to
> Gerolf about this some but i am still unsure about what I need to do to
> get this to work the way my users want it.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> T
> 

-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/How-can-I-customize-Autocomplete--tp17624104p17678516.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: Form validators expand in a ListView per each refresh

[Martin Makundi]

Tnx. I had form->listview->item->formcomponents,formvalidators

Should the embedded forms be renderBodyOnly?

I think HTML does not approve embedded forms, does it? So should I
tweak this using renderBodyOnly or similar?

**
Martin

2008/6/5 Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> you should use embedded forms
>
> form->listview->item->form+formvalidators->formcomponents
>
> instead of
>
> form+formvalidators->listview->item->formcomponents
>
> -igor
>
> On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 7:55 AM, Martin Makundi
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I use setReuseitems true yes.
>>
>> I must call the removeAll because my models have changed (I am
>> rendering a table and the table structure / colspan / rowspan /
>> elements changes). I have not found another way to update the markup
>> than calling removeAll.
>>
>> Now, the removeAll should probably remove all the IFormValidators for
>> the elements too? Currently there is no external method for removing
>> the validators, it should be automatic.
>>
>> **
>> Martin
>>
>> 2008/6/5 Maurice Marrink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>> Can't you use setReuseItems(true), that way the populate method will
>>> be called less frequently and thus will generate less validators.
>>> Don't use the removeall in combination with the reuse that will negate
>>> the effect :)
>>>
>>> Maurice
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 3:57 PM, Martin Makundi
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 Hi!

 The only workaround I came up with is as follows:
  public void validate(Form form) {
if (!form.contains(selectionField, true)) {
  return;
}
 ...
 }

 It is not elegant and the stack keeps growing. I first tried to remove
 the validator if it exists, but that brought up some nasty threading
 issues ;)

 Anybody know if it is a "feature" or a "bug" that the form validator
 stack keeps piling up those validators after each submit -
 specifically comes up in double-or-triple-submit-click situations.

 **
 Martin



 2008/6/5 Martin Makundi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi!
>
> I have a Form whose components are populated using a listView.
>
> Each listView component has a formValidator.
>
> Now each time I refresh the listview it is redrawn and all the new
> validators are newly added to the form in addition to the existing
> validators (from the previous refresh).
>
> For example, the screen has 5 items but when I debug the form I can
> see 65 validators hanging out there and giving false alarms ;)
>
> In my experience I must use listView.removeAll to assure that the
> listview is re-rendered. modelChanged does not seem to have the
> desirable effect.
>
> What is the proper pattern to clean the form listview validators?
>
> **
> Martin
>

 -
 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]
>
>

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

[Tsutomu Yano]

On 2008/06/02, at 5:44, Eelco Hillenius wrote:

> 1) Generifying* Wicket

  [X] Can best be done like currently in the 1.4 branch, where models
and components are both generified. I care most about the improved
static type checking generified models and components give Wicket.

  For me, the most important thing is that component's getModelObject() method
returns a object with correct type, which the IModel have, without casting. 
If it will be not realized, generifying Wicket have no mean.

  it is needed generifying both of components and models to realize that. 
If components will be not generified, getModelObject() method will return 
Object type always, 
then I need casting it. 
  I often usegetModelObject() method. 


>  2) How strongly do you feel about your choice above?


  [X] I might rethink upgrading if my choice doesn't win.


  However, I can understand that the way like Page, Link is 
verbose. So we can avoid the verbosity creating some generic classes for 
components. 
Like:

  - Page 
  - GenericPage extends BasePage

  If I want not write Page, you can simply use GenericPage class instead.

--
Tsutomu YANO
benbrand at mac.com
Tokyo, Japan

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

[Stefan Lindner]

Johan Compagner wrote
>next week i dont have much rest.. I am on vacation!
>Bern, Switzerland!

You are visiting an EM match? That's not a rest? :-)

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

[Johan Compagner]

next week a good rest?
next week i dont have much rest.. I am on vacation!
Bern, Switzerland!

johan


On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 8:05 PM, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

> > Right, we need to figure out what we're going to do for 1.4.  Have we
> > decided on that?  It seems like a lot of folks like the idea of making
> > the model methods non-final on Component, thereby allowing components
> > to "type themselves" by overriding them (using JDK5 covariant return
> > types) when it makes sense (ListView, Item, etc.).  This hybrid
> > approach seems like it would be a good compromise.
>
> I'm still on the fence. I was thinking that it might make a good topic
> to talk about - and decide upon - next week, when everyone has had a
> good rest and the dust has settled down etc. :-)
>
> Eelco
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>

DataProvider as model for AutoCompleteTextField?

[Michael Mehrle]

I have written a DataProvider as the model for a ListView, and would
also like to use it for a AutoCompleteTextField. I have done that
successfully in the past by explicitly accessing the iterator() method.
But I was hoping to be able to simply assign it as a model somehow. Is
this possible?

 

Thanks,

 

Michael

Re: ListChoice Crashing on 13th Load

[Eelco Hillenius]

On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 8:44 AM, John Krasnay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You are not closing your JDBC connections, and are therefore you are
> running out of connections in your connection pool.

Yep, probably something like that.

> I would STRONGLY advise against using raw JDBC. You have no idea how
> difficult it is to correctly clean up after JDBC. At the very least look
> into Spring's JdbcTemplate class, and if you're doing serious work
> invest in learning Hibernate.

Or consider looking at iBatis (http://ibatis.apache.org/), which let's
you stay closer to JDBC, but has a bunch of nice code-saving features,
and will probably handle stuff like this better as well.

Eelco

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

[Eelco Hillenius]

> Right, we need to figure out what we're going to do for 1.4.  Have we
> decided on that?  It seems like a lot of folks like the idea of making
> the model methods non-final on Component, thereby allowing components
> to "type themselves" by overriding them (using JDK5 covariant return
> types) when it makes sense (ListView, Item, etc.).  This hybrid
> approach seems like it would be a good compromise.

I'm still on the fence. I was thinking that it might make a good topic
to talk about - and decide upon - next week, when everyone has had a
good rest and the dust has settled down etc. :-)

Eelco

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Item.getIndex() on DefaultDataTable

[Flavius]

I'm using a DefaultDataTable and I want to get the index of the selected
item.  However the index always returns 0.  Is this by design?

 new AbstractColumn(new Model("Test Label"))
{
public void populateItem(Item item, String componentId, 
IModel model)
{
int selectedIndex = item.getIndex();  //this 
always returns 0;  
}
}

However, with a dataView, I do get the item index:

dataView = new DataView("dataview", dp)
{
@Override
protected void populateItem(final Item item)
{
int selectedIndex = item.getIndex();  
//increments by 1 with each
iteration.
}
}

I considered using a DataView instead of the DefaultDataTable, but the DDT
has the toolbars and such already nicely built in.  Looking at the code, it
seems like an Item in a DataView represents the entire row
whereas in the DataGridView from the DefaultDataTable, it represents a cell. 
Is this why the behavior
is different?

Thanks very much.
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/Item.getIndex%28%29-on-DefaultDataTable-tp17676006p17676006.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: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

[James Carman]

On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 1:45 PM, Eelco Hillenius
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 10:20 AM, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> yes. thats what i meant by wrapping. when/if we evaluate this we can
>> obviously put more thought into what it will effect and how to make it
>> all work. right now it was just a two minute idea i had, and it may
>> yet forever stay that way.
>
> I think it would be good to discuss this when everyone is read for it.
> I for one would like to explore alternatives to what we currently
> have. But to have that discussion now would be a waste of our time.

Right, we need to figure out what we're going to do for 1.4.  Have we
decided on that?  It seems like a lot of folks like the idea of making
the model methods non-final on Component, thereby allowing components
to "type themselves" by overriding them (using JDK5 covariant return
types) when it makes sense (ListView, Item, etc.).  This hybrid
approach seems like it would be a good compromise.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

[Eelco Hillenius]

On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 10:20 AM, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> yes. thats what i meant by wrapping. when/if we evaluate this we can
> obviously put more thought into what it will effect and how to make it
> all work. right now it was just a two minute idea i had, and it may
> yet forever stay that way.

I think it would be good to discuss this when everyone is read for it.
I for one would like to explore alternatives to what we currently
have. But to have that discussion now would be a waste of our time.

Eelco

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

[Eelco Hillenius]

There are plenty of cases where there isn't much risk and where using
CompoundPropertyModels is just convenient and leads to nicer readable
(imho) code. I use those models quite a bit, and I like them. I use
plenty of other (custom LDMs mainly) as well though.

Eelco

On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 10:29 AM, James Carman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Personally, I find CompoundPropertyModel too "magicy" for my tastes
> anyway.  Yes, it's very convenient to just use property names for
> component ids and it all just works out fine, but that can sometimes
> be difficult to understand from a new person's perspective.  When
> learning a technology, I don't really like it when folk say "just do
> it this way; it works; trust me."  When I first started using
> CompoundPropertyModel, I had these questions (and I'm sure others, but
> this is all I can think of right now)?
>
> 1.  How far up the chain does a Component go looking for something to
> base its property expression on?
> 2.  If I have a model on a Component in between my Component and the
> Component containing the CPM, will it be smart enough to "skip over"
> the intermediate model and travel up to the real one I want?
> 3.  What happens if I change property names!?
>
> Maybe it's just me and I like to know how things work! :)  I used to
> take apart my toys as a kid and I could never quite get them back
> together the way they came.
>
> James
>
> On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 1:20 PM, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> yes. thats what i meant by wrapping. when/if we evaluate this we can
>> obviously put more thought into what it will effect and how to make it
>> all work. right now it was just a two minute idea i had, and it may
>> yet forever stay that way.
>>
>> -igor
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 10:16 AM, James Carman
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> This might also screw up stuff like CompoundPropertyModel, no?  We
>>> discussed this a bit on ##wicket.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 11:44 AM, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 i didnt mean the memory slot, i ment the actual default model each
 component can have. if i can write something like this:

 add(new webmarkupcontainer("foo") {
  private imodel model;
  protected void isvisible() { return model.getobject()!=null; });

 then i am perfectly happy. notice how there is no explicit ondetach()
 to detach the model. also notice how not having a default model slot
 really removes the need for typing the component itself, i can
 implement my own typed getmodel() easily. the only thing that breaks
 here is wrapping since we no longer have a setmodel...something to
 think about

 -igor

 On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 12:53 AM, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> like matej already told you
> There is no default "slot" or field..
> A component with no model doesnt have a a slot what so ever.
>
> johan
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 11:34 PM, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>> like i said, i dont mind removing the default slot if we add nice
>> automatic detachment for fields.
>>
>> -igor
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 12:23 PM, Eelco Hillenius
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 11:48 AM, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>> >> i dont think it exposes anything, or that anything is flawed. the
>> >> component provides a slot for a default model - it is there totally
>> >> out of convinience. i think what is flawed here is that we tied the
>> >> two types via generics.
>> >
>> > It depends on how you phrase things. It is a fact that currently
>> > models and components are tightly bound because of 'getModelObject'.
>> >
>> > The main issue is that with 1.3 you can simply omit the model, whereas
>> > with generified components the choice to not use a model is explicit
>> > (whether you use void, or an annotation to ignore warnings). Very
>> > annoying if you ask me, and it triggered me to think that this is
>> > another hint that the one-one relationship between components and
>> > models like we have now is somewhat flawed. I'm not saying it totally
>> > stinks and that we should get rid of it tomorrow, just that it is
>> > something we might rethink. You know I'm a fan of rethinking stuff ;-)
>> >
>> > 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

Re: Refreshing a List view

[Sam Barnum]

Ricky, what are you using as the model for your refreshing view?

You should be using some sort of detachable model that re-fetches the  
items for the list from the DB each time.


--
Sam Barnum
360 Works
http://www.360works.com
415.865.0952



On Jun 5, 2008, at 10:32 AM, Ricky wrote:


Hi,

I have a RefreshingView which has a delete button in it (this  
deletes the
model present in the backing list for the view.) The problem is  
that when a

delete is performed on DB, (see onSubmit( ) for
*deletePlanObjectiveDetailButton
below)  *the size of the list changes, Is there a way to "refresh"  
the view

after I remove the model from the backing list (list.remove( xxx )) ??
Here's a snippet of what i am doing:

*new RefreshingView("refreshing-view-list") {

// populate item.
protected final void populateItem(final Item item) {
final MODEL backingListModel = (backingListModel)
item.getModelObject();

 item.add(new Label("label-objective-name",
backingListModel.getName()));

final Button deletePlanObjectiveDetailButton = new
Button("button-delete-plan-objective-details") {
private static final long serialVersionUID = 1L;

// onSubmit.
public final void onSubmit() {
new
ObjectiveMeasureDataProvider().deleteObjectiveMeasure 
(backingListModel);
backingListModels.remove(  );  /// <  
Searches

for backing Model deleted in current list based on id and removes it.
// TODO Figure out a way to do list view  
refresh

here.
  }
};
  item.add(deletePlanObjectiveDetailButton);
}
};

*Any Help would be appreciable!!???*
*Rick

Refreshing a List view

[Ricky]

Hi,

I have a RefreshingView which has a delete button in it (this deletes the
model present in the backing list for the view.) The problem is that when a
delete is performed on DB, (see onSubmit( ) for
*deletePlanObjectiveDetailButton
below)  *the size of the list changes, Is there a way to "refresh" the view
after I remove the model from the backing list (list.remove( xxx )) ??
Here's a snippet of what i am doing:

*new RefreshingView("refreshing-view-list") {

// populate item.
protected final void populateItem(final Item item) {
final MODEL backingListModel = (backingListModel)
item.getModelObject();

 item.add(new Label("label-objective-name",
backingListModel.getName()));

final Button deletePlanObjectiveDetailButton = new
Button("button-delete-plan-objective-details") {
private static final long serialVersionUID = 1L;

// onSubmit.
public final void onSubmit() {
new
ObjectiveMeasureDataProvider().deleteObjectiveMeasure(backingListModel);
backingListModels.remove(  );  /// < Searches
for backing Model deleted in current list based on id and removes it.
// TODO Figure out a way to do list view refresh
here.
  }
};
  item.add(deletePlanObjectiveDetailButton);
}
};

*Any Help would be appreciable!!???*
*Rick

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

[James Carman]

Personally, I find CompoundPropertyModel too "magicy" for my tastes
anyway.  Yes, it's very convenient to just use property names for
component ids and it all just works out fine, but that can sometimes
be difficult to understand from a new person's perspective.  When
learning a technology, I don't really like it when folk say "just do
it this way; it works; trust me."  When I first started using
CompoundPropertyModel, I had these questions (and I'm sure others, but
this is all I can think of right now)?

1.  How far up the chain does a Component go looking for something to
base its property expression on?
2.  If I have a model on a Component in between my Component and the
Component containing the CPM, will it be smart enough to "skip over"
the intermediate model and travel up to the real one I want?
3.  What happens if I change property names!?

Maybe it's just me and I like to know how things work! :)  I used to
take apart my toys as a kid and I could never quite get them back
together the way they came.

James

On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 1:20 PM, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> yes. thats what i meant by wrapping. when/if we evaluate this we can
> obviously put more thought into what it will effect and how to make it
> all work. right now it was just a two minute idea i had, and it may
> yet forever stay that way.
>
> -igor
>
> On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 10:16 AM, James Carman
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> This might also screw up stuff like CompoundPropertyModel, no?  We
>> discussed this a bit on ##wicket.
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 11:44 AM, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> i didnt mean the memory slot, i ment the actual default model each
>>> component can have. if i can write something like this:
>>>
>>> add(new webmarkupcontainer("foo") {
>>>  private imodel model;
>>>  protected void isvisible() { return model.getobject()!=null; });
>>>
>>> then i am perfectly happy. notice how there is no explicit ondetach()
>>> to detach the model. also notice how not having a default model slot
>>> really removes the need for typing the component itself, i can
>>> implement my own typed getmodel() easily. the only thing that breaks
>>> here is wrapping since we no longer have a setmodel...something to
>>> think about
>>>
>>> -igor
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 12:53 AM, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 like matej already told you
 There is no default "slot" or field..
 A component with no model doesnt have a a slot what so ever.

 johan


 On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 11:34 PM, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 wrote:

> like i said, i dont mind removing the default slot if we add nice
> automatic detachment for fields.
>
> -igor
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 12:23 PM, Eelco Hillenius
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 11:48 AM, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >> i dont think it exposes anything, or that anything is flawed. the
> >> component provides a slot for a default model - it is there totally
> >> out of convinience. i think what is flawed here is that we tied the
> >> two types via generics.
> >
> > It depends on how you phrase things. It is a fact that currently
> > models and components are tightly bound because of 'getModelObject'.
> >
> > The main issue is that with 1.3 you can simply omit the model, whereas
> > with generified components the choice to not use a model is explicit
> > (whether you use void, or an annotation to ignore warnings). Very
> > annoying if you ask me, and it triggered me to think that this is
> > another hint that the one-one relationship between components and
> > models like we have now is somewhat flawed. I'm not saying it totally
> > stinks and that we should get rid of it tomorrow, just that it is
> > something we might rethink. You know I'm a fan of rethinking stuff ;-)
> >
> > 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]
>>
>>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

[Igor Vaynberg]

yes. thats what i meant by wrapping. when/if we evaluate this we can
obviously put more thought into what it will effect and how to make it
all work. right now it was just a two minute idea i had, and it may
yet forever stay that way.

-igor

On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 10:16 AM, James Carman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This might also screw up stuff like CompoundPropertyModel, no?  We
> discussed this a bit on ##wicket.
>
> On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 11:44 AM, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> i didnt mean the memory slot, i ment the actual default model each
>> component can have. if i can write something like this:
>>
>> add(new webmarkupcontainer("foo") {
>>  private imodel model;
>>  protected void isvisible() { return model.getobject()!=null; });
>>
>> then i am perfectly happy. notice how there is no explicit ondetach()
>> to detach the model. also notice how not having a default model slot
>> really removes the need for typing the component itself, i can
>> implement my own typed getmodel() easily. the only thing that breaks
>> here is wrapping since we no longer have a setmodel...something to
>> think about
>>
>> -igor
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 12:53 AM, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> like matej already told you
>>> There is no default "slot" or field..
>>> A component with no model doesnt have a a slot what so ever.
>>>
>>> johan
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 11:34 PM, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
 like i said, i dont mind removing the default slot if we add nice
 automatic detachment for fields.

 -igor


 On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 12:23 PM, Eelco Hillenius
 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 > On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 11:48 AM, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 wrote:
 >> i dont think it exposes anything, or that anything is flawed. the
 >> component provides a slot for a default model - it is there totally
 >> out of convinience. i think what is flawed here is that we tied the
 >> two types via generics.
 >
 > It depends on how you phrase things. It is a fact that currently
 > models and components are tightly bound because of 'getModelObject'.
 >
 > The main issue is that with 1.3 you can simply omit the model, whereas
 > with generified components the choice to not use a model is explicit
 > (whether you use void, or an annotation to ignore warnings). Very
 > annoying if you ask me, and it triggered me to think that this is
 > another hint that the one-one relationship between components and
 > models like we have now is somewhat flawed. I'm not saying it totally
 > stinks and that we should get rid of it tomorrow, just that it is
 > something we might rethink. You know I'm a fan of rethinking stuff ;-)
 >
 > 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]
>
>

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

[James Carman]

This might also screw up stuff like CompoundPropertyModel, no?  We
discussed this a bit on ##wicket.

On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 11:44 AM, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> i didnt mean the memory slot, i ment the actual default model each
> component can have. if i can write something like this:
>
> add(new webmarkupcontainer("foo") {
>  private imodel model;
>  protected void isvisible() { return model.getobject()!=null; });
>
> then i am perfectly happy. notice how there is no explicit ondetach()
> to detach the model. also notice how not having a default model slot
> really removes the need for typing the component itself, i can
> implement my own typed getmodel() easily. the only thing that breaks
> here is wrapping since we no longer have a setmodel...something to
> think about
>
> -igor
>
> On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 12:53 AM, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> like matej already told you
>> There is no default "slot" or field..
>> A component with no model doesnt have a a slot what so ever.
>>
>> johan
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 11:34 PM, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> like i said, i dont mind removing the default slot if we add nice
>>> automatic detachment for fields.
>>>
>>> -igor
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 12:23 PM, Eelco Hillenius
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> > On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 11:48 AM, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> wrote:
>>> >> i dont think it exposes anything, or that anything is flawed. the
>>> >> component provides a slot for a default model - it is there totally
>>> >> out of convinience. i think what is flawed here is that we tied the
>>> >> two types via generics.
>>> >
>>> > It depends on how you phrase things. It is a fact that currently
>>> > models and components are tightly bound because of 'getModelObject'.
>>> >
>>> > The main issue is that with 1.3 you can simply omit the model, whereas
>>> > with generified components the choice to not use a model is explicit
>>> > (whether you use void, or an annotation to ignore warnings). Very
>>> > annoying if you ask me, and it triggered me to think that this is
>>> > another hint that the one-one relationship between components and
>>> > models like we have now is somewhat flawed. I'm not saying it totally
>>> > stinks and that we should get rid of it tomorrow, just that it is
>>> > something we might rethink. You know I'm a fan of rethinking stuff ;-)
>>> >
>>> > 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: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

[Johan Compagner]

For that we have 1.3

1.4 will be java 5

On 6/5/08, pkcinna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>[x] Should be avoided, I prefer the way 1.3 works. Because sometimes I
> still run into web servers like websphere 5.x that still depend on jdk 1.4
> (also some tomcat 5.5 hosting sites).  The beauty of Wicket is its
> simplicity and adding generics doesn't seem be worth the cost.  I like
> generics but I get tons of warnings in Eclipse now about wicket generics
> just from using components.  Please focus on making Wicket even more
> concise, elegant, and easy to use...  seems like thats always where web
> frameworks fail... they tack on so many features and abstract framework
> requirements that it becomes a mess.
>
> 2) How strongly do you feel about your choice above?
>[x] I might rethink upgrading if my choice doesn't win.
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/users%2C-please-give-us-your-opinion%3A-what-is-your-take-on-generics-with-Wicket-tp17589984p17673404.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: scriptaculous toaster

[Ryan Sonnek]

Not sure what this 'toaster' is, but i really like the multiple effect!  is
it available in 1.8 or is this in scriptaculous 2.0?

We have a scriptaculous header contributor using the
ScriptaculousAjaxBehavior.newJavascriptBindingBehavior().  do you need
something different?


On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 8:32 PM, Nino Saturnino Martinez Vazquez Wael <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hi Ryan?
>
> I need this effect :
> http://github.com/madrobby/scriptaculous/wikis/effect-multiple to be able
> to build the toaster. It's almost done, a scriptaculous header contributor
> would also be very nice.
>
> When im done with the toaster should I just add it to the project?
>
> --
> -Wicket for love
>
> Nino Martinez Wael
> Java Specialist @ Jayway DK
> http://www.jayway.dk
> +45 2936 7684
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>

Re: Form validators expand in a ListView per each refresh

[Igor Vaynberg]

you should use embedded forms

form->listview->item->form+formvalidators->formcomponents

instead of

form+formvalidators->listview->item->formcomponents

-igor

On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 7:55 AM, Martin Makundi
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I use setReuseitems true yes.
>
> I must call the removeAll because my models have changed (I am
> rendering a table and the table structure / colspan / rowspan /
> elements changes). I have not found another way to update the markup
> than calling removeAll.
>
> Now, the removeAll should probably remove all the IFormValidators for
> the elements too? Currently there is no external method for removing
> the validators, it should be automatic.
>
> **
> Martin
>
> 2008/6/5 Maurice Marrink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Can't you use setReuseItems(true), that way the populate method will
>> be called less frequently and thus will generate less validators.
>> Don't use the removeall in combination with the reuse that will negate
>> the effect :)
>>
>> Maurice
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 3:57 PM, Martin Makundi
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> The only workaround I came up with is as follows:
>>>  public void validate(Form form) {
>>>if (!form.contains(selectionField, true)) {
>>>  return;
>>>}
>>> ...
>>> }
>>>
>>> It is not elegant and the stack keeps growing. I first tried to remove
>>> the validator if it exists, but that brought up some nasty threading
>>> issues ;)
>>>
>>> Anybody know if it is a "feature" or a "bug" that the form validator
>>> stack keeps piling up those validators after each submit -
>>> specifically comes up in double-or-triple-submit-click situations.
>>>
>>> **
>>> Martin
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2008/6/5 Martin Makundi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
 Hi!

 I have a Form whose components are populated using a listView.

 Each listView component has a formValidator.

 Now each time I refresh the listview it is redrawn and all the new
 validators are newly added to the form in addition to the existing
 validators (from the previous refresh).

 For example, the screen has 5 items but when I debug the form I can
 see 65 validators hanging out there and giving false alarms ;)

 In my experience I must use listView.removeAll to assure that the
 listview is re-rendered. modelChanged does not seem to have the
 desirable effect.

 What is the proper pattern to clean the form listview validators?

 **
 Martin

>>>
>>> -
>>> 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: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

[pkcinna]

   [x] Should be avoided, I prefer the way 1.3 works. Because sometimes I
still run into web servers like websphere 5.x that still depend on jdk 1.4
(also some tomcat 5.5 hosting sites).  The beauty of Wicket is its
simplicity and adding generics doesn't seem be worth the cost.  I like
generics but I get tons of warnings in Eclipse now about wicket generics
just from using components.  Please focus on making Wicket even more
concise, elegant, and easy to use...  seems like thats always where web
frameworks fail... they tack on so many features and abstract framework
requirements that it becomes a mess.

2) How strongly do you feel about your choice above? 
   [x] I might rethink upgrading if my choice doesn't win. 
 
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/users%2C-please-give-us-your-opinion%3A-what-is-your-take-on-generics-with-Wicket-tp17589984p17673404.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: ListChoice Crashing on 13th Load

[John Krasnay]

You are not closing your JDBC connections, and are therefore you are
running out of connections in your connection pool.

I would STRONGLY advise against using raw JDBC. You have no idea how
difficult it is to correctly clean up after JDBC. At the very least look
into Spring's JdbcTemplate class, and if you're doing serious work
invest in learning Hibernate.

jk

On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 08:32:33AM -0700, wfroud wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I've been having trouble getting my app to run for any reasonable period of
> time without crashing. I've laid out a basic page that contains a 
> 
> ListChoice component, after loading this page 13 times (when I have more
> components it's far less) it just hangs indefinitely.
> 
> I'm sure the problem is something to do with either storing heavy objects in
> memory or a serialization issue (from all that I have read) but I 
> 
> can't work out why. 
> 
> I'm using Wicket version 1.2.6 in development mode with Java 5.
> 
> Here is my code:
> 
> public class Operations extends WebPage {
> 
>   private String selection;
>   
>   @SpringBean
>   private ICategoryDao categoryDao;
>   
>   public void setCategoryDao(ICategoryDao categoryDao) {
>   this.categoryDao = categoryDao;
>   }
> 
>   ...
> 
>   MyCategory catModel = new MyCategory();
> 
>   ListChoice categories = new ListChoice(
>   "categories",
>   new PropertyModel(catModel, "category"),
>   new LoadableDetachableModel() {
>   @Override
>   protected Object load() {
>   return categoryDao.getAllCategories();
>   }
>   }, 
>   new ChoiceRenderer("category", "categoryId"),
>   5); 
>   
>   add(categories);
> 
>   ...
> }
> 
> 
> public class MyCategory { 
> 
>   private Category category;
>   
>   public Category getCategory() {
>   return category;
>   }
> 
>   public void setCategory(Category category) {
>   this.category = category;
>   }
> 
> } 
> 
> public class CategoryDao implements ICategoryDao {
>   
>   @SpringBean
>   private DataSource dataSource;
>   
>   public void setDataSource(DataSource dataSource) {
>   this.dataSource = dataSource;
>   } 
>   
>   private Connection getConnection() {
>   return DataSourceUtils.getConnection(dataSource);
>   }
>   
>   public List getAllCategories() {
> 
>   List results = new ArrayList();
>   
>   try {
>   PreparedStatement st = getConnection()
>   .prepareStatement("SELECT Category_ID, Category 
> FROM Category");
>   try {
>   ResultSet rs = st.executeQuery();
>   while (rs.next()) {
>   results.add(
>   new 
> Category(rs.getInt("Category_ID"), rs.getString("Category"))
>   );
>   }
>   return results;
>   } finally {
>   st.close();
>   }
>   } catch (SQLException e) {
>   throw new RuntimeException(e);
>   }
>   }
> }
> 
> public class Category implements Serializable {
>   private int categoryId;
>   private String category;
> 
>   public Category(int categoryId, String category) {
>   this.categoryId = categoryId;
>   this.category = category;
>   }
>   
>   public String getCategory() {
>   return category;
>   }
>   
>   public void setCategory(String category) {
>   this.category = category;
>   }
>   
>   public int getCategoryId() {
>   return categoryId;
>   }
> 
>   public void setCategoryId(int categoryId) {
>   this.categoryId = categoryId;
>   }
> }
> 
> Please could you provide some code snippets or comments if you know why this
> might be crashing.
> 
> Thanks very much for your time, much appreciated.
> 
> Regards, 
> 
> Will
> -- 
> View this message in context: 
> http://www.nabble.com/ListChoice-Crashing-on-13th-Load-tp17672729p17672729.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: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

[Igor Vaynberg]

i didnt mean the memory slot, i ment the actual default model each
component can have. if i can write something like this:

add(new webmarkupcontainer("foo") {
  private imodel model;
  protected void isvisible() { return model.getobject()!=null; });

then i am perfectly happy. notice how there is no explicit ondetach()
to detach the model. also notice how not having a default model slot
really removes the need for typing the component itself, i can
implement my own typed getmodel() easily. the only thing that breaks
here is wrapping since we no longer have a setmodel...something to
think about

-igor

On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 12:53 AM, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> like matej already told you
> There is no default "slot" or field..
> A component with no model doesnt have a a slot what so ever.
>
> johan
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 11:34 PM, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>> like i said, i dont mind removing the default slot if we add nice
>> automatic detachment for fields.
>>
>> -igor
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 12:23 PM, Eelco Hillenius
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 11:48 AM, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>> >> i dont think it exposes anything, or that anything is flawed. the
>> >> component provides a slot for a default model - it is there totally
>> >> out of convinience. i think what is flawed here is that we tied the
>> >> two types via generics.
>> >
>> > It depends on how you phrase things. It is a fact that currently
>> > models and components are tightly bound because of 'getModelObject'.
>> >
>> > The main issue is that with 1.3 you can simply omit the model, whereas
>> > with generified components the choice to not use a model is explicit
>> > (whether you use void, or an annotation to ignore warnings). Very
>> > annoying if you ask me, and it triggered me to think that this is
>> > another hint that the one-one relationship between components and
>> > models like we have now is somewhat flawed. I'm not saying it totally
>> > stinks and that we should get rid of it tomorrow, just that it is
>> > something we might rethink. You know I'm a fan of rethinking stuff ;-)
>> >
>> > 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: Problem: Check within a ListView

[Igor Vaynberg]

right, so like that its not going to work. you need a model in between
that can buffer values and insert missing checked by disabled values.

-igor

On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 4:36 AM, Kai Mütz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Igor Vaynberg  wrote:
>> it is possible, just depends on how you set up your models. it is not
>> possible by directly reading the collection of checkgroup, but you
>> can come up with a different way.
>>
>
> The checkgroup is part of a form based on a CompoundPropertyModel wrapping a
> User object which has a "roles" property (List). Nothing special.
>
> Kai
>
>
> -
> 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]

ListChoice Crashing on 13th Load

[wfroud]

Hi,

I've been having trouble getting my app to run for any reasonable period of
time without crashing. I've laid out a basic page that contains a 

ListChoice component, after loading this page 13 times (when I have more
components it's far less) it just hangs indefinitely.

I'm sure the problem is something to do with either storing heavy objects in
memory or a serialization issue (from all that I have read) but I 

can't work out why. 

I'm using Wicket version 1.2.6 in development mode with Java 5.

Here is my code:

public class Operations extends WebPage {

private String selection;

@SpringBean
private ICategoryDao categoryDao;

public void setCategoryDao(ICategoryDao categoryDao) {
this.categoryDao = categoryDao;
}

...

MyCategory catModel = new MyCategory();

ListChoice categories = new ListChoice(
"categories",
new PropertyModel(catModel, "category"),
new LoadableDetachableModel() {
@Override
protected Object load() {
return categoryDao.getAllCategories();
}
}, 
new ChoiceRenderer("category", "categoryId"),
5); 

add(categories);

...
}


public class MyCategory { 

private Category category;

public Category getCategory() {
return category;
}

public void setCategory(Category category) {
this.category = category;
}

}   

public class CategoryDao implements ICategoryDao {

@SpringBean
private DataSource dataSource;

public void setDataSource(DataSource dataSource) {
this.dataSource = dataSource;
} 

private Connection getConnection() {
return DataSourceUtils.getConnection(dataSource);
}

public List getAllCategories() {

List results = new ArrayList();

try {
PreparedStatement st = getConnection()
.prepareStatement("SELECT Category_ID, Category 
FROM Category");
try {
ResultSet rs = st.executeQuery();
while (rs.next()) {
results.add(
new 
Category(rs.getInt("Category_ID"), rs.getString("Category"))
);
}
return results;
} finally {
st.close();
}
} catch (SQLException e) {
throw new RuntimeException(e);
}
}
}

public class Category implements Serializable {
private int categoryId;
private String category;

public Category(int categoryId, String category) {
this.categoryId = categoryId;
this.category = category;
}

public String getCategory() {
return category;
}

public void setCategory(String category) {
this.category = category;
}

public int getCategoryId() {
return categoryId;
}

public void setCategoryId(int categoryId) {
this.categoryId = categoryId;
}
}

Please could you provide some code snippets or comments if you know why this
might be crashing.

Thanks very much for your time, much appreciated.

Regards, 

Will
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/ListChoice-Crashing-on-13th-Load-tp17672729p17672729.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]

ModalWindow

[nanotech]

Hi All,

I am using panel inside a ModalWindow. I have few questions regarding Modal
Window.

1. It seems that setInitialWidth(800)  is not being honoured. No matter what
size I set it comes out to be same size.

2. Also, when I try to increase horiznontal size of modal window (by
dragging )then it does not increase,however the parent window from where
modal window has come shows horzontal scrollbar. (I know it works fine in
the example at
http://www.wicket-library.com/wicket-examples/ajax/modal-window.0 ) . But I
wonder whats wrong in my case. 

Inspecting the div in Firebug showed



However, the actual modal window did not expand horizontally.

3. Is there a way to set(or restrict) max width / max height of ModalWindow.

4. How can I add Header/Footer in  Modal window (Do I have to use Modal
window with Page in that case?)

5. Also, when ModalWindow gets created it uses modal.css for styling. Is it
possible to provide my own css? If yes, then do I have to keep the css class
names same as in modal.css (e.g class="wicket-modal" )


Thanks,
RG
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/ModalWindow-tp17672576p17672576.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: Form validators expand in a ListView per each refresh

[Martin Makundi]

I use setReuseitems true yes.

I must call the removeAll because my models have changed (I am
rendering a table and the table structure / colspan / rowspan /
elements changes). I have not found another way to update the markup
than calling removeAll.

Now, the removeAll should probably remove all the IFormValidators for
the elements too? Currently there is no external method for removing
the validators, it should be automatic.

**
Martin

2008/6/5 Maurice Marrink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Can't you use setReuseItems(true), that way the populate method will
> be called less frequently and thus will generate less validators.
> Don't use the removeall in combination with the reuse that will negate
> the effect :)
>
> Maurice
>
> On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 3:57 PM, Martin Makundi
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> The only workaround I came up with is as follows:
>>  public void validate(Form form) {
>>if (!form.contains(selectionField, true)) {
>>  return;
>>}
>> ...
>> }
>>
>> It is not elegant and the stack keeps growing. I first tried to remove
>> the validator if it exists, but that brought up some nasty threading
>> issues ;)
>>
>> Anybody know if it is a "feature" or a "bug" that the form validator
>> stack keeps piling up those validators after each submit -
>> specifically comes up in double-or-triple-submit-click situations.
>>
>> **
>> Martin
>>
>>
>>
>> 2008/6/5 Martin Makundi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> I have a Form whose components are populated using a listView.
>>>
>>> Each listView component has a formValidator.
>>>
>>> Now each time I refresh the listview it is redrawn and all the new
>>> validators are newly added to the form in addition to the existing
>>> validators (from the previous refresh).
>>>
>>> For example, the screen has 5 items but when I debug the form I can
>>> see 65 validators hanging out there and giving false alarms ;)
>>>
>>> In my experience I must use listView.removeAll to assure that the
>>> listview is re-rendered. modelChanged does not seem to have the
>>> desirable effect.
>>>
>>> What is the proper pattern to clean the form listview validators?
>>>
>>> **
>>> Martin
>>>
>>
>> -
>> 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: Contructor model

[Manuel Corrales]

I will try that, thanks!

On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 11:25 AM, Gwyn Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> In which case, maybe something along the lines of...
>
> MyPage() {
>  displayedName = "";
>  setModel(new CompoundPropertyModel(new Customer(displayedName));
>  Form form = new Form() {
>void onSubmit() {
>  Customer customer = (Customer)getModelObject();
>  if (!displayedName.equals(customer.getName()) {
>setModelObject(new Customer(customer.getName()));
>  } else {
>  ...
>  }
>  }
>  add(form);
>  form.add(new TextField("name"));
>  ...
>
> /Gwyn
>
> On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 3:09 PM, Manuel Corrales
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Half way there :)
> >
> > public class MyPage extends WebPage {
> >  public MyPage(String name) {
> >   setModel(new Model(new Customer(name));
> >
> > that what i want, but instead of having name as a parameter on the page
> > constructor, i would like to have it from the same form the other
> Customer
> > data is being filled.
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 10:40 AM, Gwyn Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Are you looking for something like:
> >>
> >> public class MyPage extends WebPage {
> >>  public MyPage(String name) {
> >>setModel(new Model(new Customer(name));
> >>...
> >>
> >> /Gwyn
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 2:22 PM, Manuel Corrales
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > Hi, i will rephrase. I have a class Customer on my domain, and
> Customer
> >> do
> >> > not have a default constructor. Lets assume Customer have a
> constructor
> >> with
> >> > a String:
> >> >
> >> > public class Customer {
> >> >   Customer(String name) {
> >> >   ...
> >> >   }
> >> > }
> >> >
> >> > It is possible to create a wicket model, to create a new instance of
> >> > Customer? I mean, if i am not getting it wrong the wicket model use
> >> > accessors (get, set) to "fill" the objects, so how can i do to use the
> >> > Customer constructor from a wicket model?
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 5:41 PM, Maurice Marrink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> What do you mean?
> >> >> If your page accepts a certain model in its constructor you can do
> >> >> with it whatever you want.
> >> >> Any page (with or without empty constructor) can be created from
> >> >> within another page. Although typically you will do this on a link
> >> >> click or form submit.
> >> >> Just do setResponsePage(new MyPage(whatever_args_here);
> >> >>
> >> >> Maurice
> >> >>
> >> >> On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 6:27 PM, Manuel Corrales
> >> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> > Hi, let assume i have a class with no empty constructors (at least
> no
> >> >> > publics). And i want to use a wicket page to instantiate this
> class.
> >> It
> >> >> is
> >> >> > possible to create a model for this, so i dont have to use another
> >> object
> >> >> or
> >> >> > add setters. I dont know if i made myself clear. Please feel free
> to
> >> ask.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Thanks in advance!
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Regards.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> -
> >> >> 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: Form validators expand in a ListView per each refresh

[Maurice Marrink]

Can't you use setReuseItems(true), that way the populate method will
be called less frequently and thus will generate less validators.
Don't use the removeall in combination with the reuse that will negate
the effect :)

Maurice

On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 3:57 PM, Martin Makundi
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> The only workaround I came up with is as follows:
>  public void validate(Form form) {
>if (!form.contains(selectionField, true)) {
>  return;
>}
> ...
> }
>
> It is not elegant and the stack keeps growing. I first tried to remove
> the validator if it exists, but that brought up some nasty threading
> issues ;)
>
> Anybody know if it is a "feature" or a "bug" that the form validator
> stack keeps piling up those validators after each submit -
> specifically comes up in double-or-triple-submit-click situations.
>
> **
> Martin
>
>
>
> 2008/6/5 Martin Makundi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Hi!
>>
>> I have a Form whose components are populated using a listView.
>>
>> Each listView component has a formValidator.
>>
>> Now each time I refresh the listview it is redrawn and all the new
>> validators are newly added to the form in addition to the existing
>> validators (from the previous refresh).
>>
>> For example, the screen has 5 items but when I debug the form I can
>> see 65 validators hanging out there and giving false alarms ;)
>>
>> In my experience I must use listView.removeAll to assure that the
>> listview is re-rendered. modelChanged does not seem to have the
>> desirable effect.
>>
>> What is the proper pattern to clean the form listview validators?
>>
>> **
>> Martin
>>
>
> -
> 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: Contructor model

[Gwyn Evans]

In which case, maybe something along the lines of...

MyPage() {
  displayedName = "";
  setModel(new CompoundPropertyModel(new Customer(displayedName));
  Form form = new Form() {
void onSubmit() {
  Customer customer = (Customer)getModelObject();
  if (!displayedName.equals(customer.getName()) {
setModelObject(new Customer(customer.getName()));
  } else {
  ...
  }
  }
  add(form);
  form.add(new TextField("name"));
  ...

/Gwyn

On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 3:09 PM, Manuel Corrales
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Half way there :)
>
> public class MyPage extends WebPage {
>  public MyPage(String name) {
>   setModel(new Model(new Customer(name));
>
> that what i want, but instead of having name as a parameter on the page
> constructor, i would like to have it from the same form the other Customer
> data is being filled.
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 10:40 AM, Gwyn Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Are you looking for something like:
>>
>> public class MyPage extends WebPage {
>>  public MyPage(String name) {
>>setModel(new Model(new Customer(name));
>>...
>>
>> /Gwyn
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 2:22 PM, Manuel Corrales
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Hi, i will rephrase. I have a class Customer on my domain, and Customer
>> do
>> > not have a default constructor. Lets assume Customer have a constructor
>> with
>> > a String:
>> >
>> > public class Customer {
>> >   Customer(String name) {
>> >   ...
>> >   }
>> > }
>> >
>> > It is possible to create a wicket model, to create a new instance of
>> > Customer? I mean, if i am not getting it wrong the wicket model use
>> > accessors (get, set) to "fill" the objects, so how can i do to use the
>> > Customer constructor from a wicket model?
>> >
>> > On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 5:41 PM, Maurice Marrink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> What do you mean?
>> >> If your page accepts a certain model in its constructor you can do
>> >> with it whatever you want.
>> >> Any page (with or without empty constructor) can be created from
>> >> within another page. Although typically you will do this on a link
>> >> click or form submit.
>> >> Just do setResponsePage(new MyPage(whatever_args_here);
>> >>
>> >> Maurice
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 6:27 PM, Manuel Corrales
>> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> > Hi, let assume i have a class with no empty constructors (at least no
>> >> > publics). And i want to use a wicket page to instantiate this class.
>> It
>> >> is
>> >> > possible to create a model for this, so i dont have to use another
>> object
>> >> or
>> >> > add setters. I dont know if i made myself clear. Please feel free to
>> ask.
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks in advance!
>> >> >
>> >> > Regards.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> -
>> >> 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: Contructor model

[Manuel Corrales]

Half way there :)

public class MyPage extends WebPage {
 public MyPage(String name) {
   setModel(new Model(new Customer(name));

that what i want, but instead of having name as a parameter on the page
constructor, i would like to have it from the same form the other Customer
data is being filled.


On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 10:40 AM, Gwyn Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Are you looking for something like:
>
> public class MyPage extends WebPage {
>  public MyPage(String name) {
>setModel(new Model(new Customer(name));
>...
>
> /Gwyn
>
> On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 2:22 PM, Manuel Corrales
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi, i will rephrase. I have a class Customer on my domain, and Customer
> do
> > not have a default constructor. Lets assume Customer have a constructor
> with
> > a String:
> >
> > public class Customer {
> >   Customer(String name) {
> >   ...
> >   }
> > }
> >
> > It is possible to create a wicket model, to create a new instance of
> > Customer? I mean, if i am not getting it wrong the wicket model use
> > accessors (get, set) to "fill" the objects, so how can i do to use the
> > Customer constructor from a wicket model?
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 5:41 PM, Maurice Marrink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> >> What do you mean?
> >> If your page accepts a certain model in its constructor you can do
> >> with it whatever you want.
> >> Any page (with or without empty constructor) can be created from
> >> within another page. Although typically you will do this on a link
> >> click or form submit.
> >> Just do setResponsePage(new MyPage(whatever_args_here);
> >>
> >> Maurice
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 6:27 PM, Manuel Corrales
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > Hi, let assume i have a class with no empty constructors (at least no
> >> > publics). And i want to use a wicket page to instantiate this class.
> It
> >> is
> >> > possible to create a model for this, so i dont have to use another
> object
> >> or
> >> > add setters. I dont know if i made myself clear. Please feel free to
> ask.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks in advance!
> >> >
> >> > Regards.
> >> >
> >>
> >> -
> >> 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: PatternValidation on timestamp / RawInputPatternValidator

[Thomas Lutz]

As a "workaround" I've implemented a form validator, as this was a way 
to access the raw input. in case anybody is interested, find the source 
below.


I am pretty sure, that there are others out there, that need to validate 
the rawinput, before any conversion is applied, and do not want to mix 
converters with validators, so what about a 
FormComponenet.addRawInputValidator ?


Cheers,
Tom


package at.schnirkel.wicket.validator;

import org.apache.wicket.markup.html.form.validation.IFormValidator;
import org.apache.wicket.markup.html.form.validation.AbstractFormValidator;
import org.apache.wicket.markup.html.form.FormComponent;
import org.apache.wicket.markup.html.form.Form;
import org.apache.wicket.validation.validator.PatternValidator;

public class RawInputFormValidator extends AbstractFormValidator 
implements IFormValidator

{
   FormComponent[] formComponents = new FormComponent[1];

   PatternValidator patternValidator;

   public RawInputFormValidator(FormComponent formComponent, String 
pattern)

   {
   this.formComponents[0] = formComponent;
   patternValidator = new PatternValidator(pattern);
   }

   public FormComponent[] getDependentFormComponents()
   {

   return formComponents;
   }

   public void validate(Form form)
   {
   FormComponent formComponent = formComponents[0];
   String rawInput = formComponent.getRawInput();
   if (!patternValidator.getPattern().matcher(rawInput).matches())
   {
 error(formComponent);
   }
   }
}


Thomas Lutz schrieb:

hi list !

In my form model bean I've got an attribute of type java.sql.Timestamp.

Unfortunately I've got to perform a regular expression validation on 
the input.


Adding a PatternValidator does not work, as first the converter is 
called, and afterwards the validators. Within the validator interface 
there is no chance to access the raw input, so no chance in 
implementing my own validator, and .. too much finals to tweak it in :-).


Is there a way to integrate a  "raw input pattern validator" ?

Thanks !
Tom

p.s.: wicket 1.3.3 and no chance to upgrade, need to stay with java 
1.4 for another year :-/


-
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: Form validators expand in a ListView per each refresh

[Martin Makundi]

Hi!

The only workaround I came up with is as follows:
  public void validate(Form form) {
if (!form.contains(selectionField, true)) {
  return;
}
...
}

It is not elegant and the stack keeps growing. I first tried to remove
the validator if it exists, but that brought up some nasty threading
issues ;)

Anybody know if it is a "feature" or a "bug" that the form validator
stack keeps piling up those validators after each submit -
specifically comes up in double-or-triple-submit-click situations.

**
Martin



2008/6/5 Martin Makundi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi!
>
> I have a Form whose components are populated using a listView.
>
> Each listView component has a formValidator.
>
> Now each time I refresh the listview it is redrawn and all the new
> validators are newly added to the form in addition to the existing
> validators (from the previous refresh).
>
> For example, the screen has 5 items but when I debug the form I can
> see 65 validators hanging out there and giving false alarms ;)
>
> In my experience I must use listView.removeAll to assure that the
> listview is re-rendered. modelChanged does not seem to have the
> desirable effect.
>
> What is the proper pattern to clean the form listview validators?
>
> **
> Martin
>

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Contructor model

[Gwyn Evans]

Are you looking for something like:

public class MyPage extends WebPage {
  public MyPage(String name) {
setModel(new Model(new Customer(name));
...

/Gwyn

On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 2:22 PM, Manuel Corrales
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi, i will rephrase. I have a class Customer on my domain, and Customer do
> not have a default constructor. Lets assume Customer have a constructor with
> a String:
>
> public class Customer {
>   Customer(String name) {
>   ...
>   }
> }
>
> It is possible to create a wicket model, to create a new instance of
> Customer? I mean, if i am not getting it wrong the wicket model use
> accessors (get, set) to "fill" the objects, so how can i do to use the
> Customer constructor from a wicket model?
>
> On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 5:41 PM, Maurice Marrink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> What do you mean?
>> If your page accepts a certain model in its constructor you can do
>> with it whatever you want.
>> Any page (with or without empty constructor) can be created from
>> within another page. Although typically you will do this on a link
>> click or form submit.
>> Just do setResponsePage(new MyPage(whatever_args_here);
>>
>> Maurice
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 6:27 PM, Manuel Corrales
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Hi, let assume i have a class with no empty constructors (at least no
>> > publics). And i want to use a wicket page to instantiate this class. It
>> is
>> > possible to create a model for this, so i dont have to use another object
>> or
>> > add setters. I dont know if i made myself clear. Please feel free to ask.
>> >
>> > Thanks in advance!
>> >
>> > Regards.
>> >
>>
>> -
>> 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]

Form validators expand in a ListView per each refresh

[Martin Makundi]

Hi!

I have a Form whose components are populated using a listView.

Each listView component has a formValidator.

Now each time I refresh the listview it is redrawn and all the new
validators are newly added to the form in addition to the existing
validators (from the previous refresh).

For example, the screen has 5 items but when I debug the form I can
see 65 validators hanging out there and giving false alarms ;)

In my experience I must use listView.removeAll to assure that the
listview is re-rendered. modelChanged does not seem to have the
desirable effect.

What is the proper pattern to clean the form listview validators?

**
Martin

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Contructor model

[Manuel Corrales]

Hi, i will rephrase. I have a class Customer on my domain, and Customer do
not have a default constructor. Lets assume Customer have a constructor with
a String:

public class Customer {
   Customer(String name) {
   ...
   }
}

It is possible to create a wicket model, to create a new instance of
Customer? I mean, if i am not getting it wrong the wicket model use
accessors (get, set) to "fill" the objects, so how can i do to use the
Customer constructor from a wicket model?

On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 5:41 PM, Maurice Marrink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> What do you mean?
> If your page accepts a certain model in its constructor you can do
> with it whatever you want.
> Any page (with or without empty constructor) can be created from
> within another page. Although typically you will do this on a link
> click or form submit.
> Just do setResponsePage(new MyPage(whatever_args_here);
>
> Maurice
>
> On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 6:27 PM, Manuel Corrales
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi, let assume i have a class with no empty constructors (at least no
> > publics). And i want to use a wicket page to instantiate this class. It
> is
> > possible to create a model for this, so i dont have to use another object
> or
> > add setters. I dont know if i made myself clear. Please feel free to ask.
> >
> > Thanks in advance!
> >
> > Regards.
> >
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>

RE: how to pass parameters while setting page expired error page

[Patel, Sanjay]

That's what I am doing right now. I was just wondering if there is
another way so there is no need to create another page just to add one
line (info(xxx)). 

Thanks for your time.
Sanjay.

-Original Message-
From: Johan Compagner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2008 3:39 AM
To: users@wicket.apache.org
Subject: Re: how to pass parameters while setting page expired error
page

class SessionExpiredLoginPage extends LoginPage() {
SessionExpiredLoginPage()
   {
super();
info(xx)
   }
}


On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 6:25 PM, Patel, Sanjay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

> I want to pass some param so I can know in LoginPage that it is called

> because of session expired and I can show appropriate message (e.g 
> your session is expired, please login again.)
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Johan Compagner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 12:11 PM
> To: users@wicket.apache.org
> Subject: Re: how to pass parameters while setting page expired error 
> page
>
> What param is that? What info do you want to pass in?
>
>
>
> On 6/4/08, Patel, Sanjay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I want to redirect to LoginPage if session expires and want to show 
> > message that "your session expired, please login again."
> > Is there any way that I can pass parameters to LoginPage ??
> >
> > getApplicationSettings().setPageExpiredErrorPage(LoginPage.class);
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Sanjay.
> >
> >
> > 
> > - 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]

PatternValidation on timestamp / RawInputPatternValidator

[Thomas Lutz]

hi list !

In my form model bean I've got an attribute of type java.sql.Timestamp.

Unfortunately I've got to perform a regular expression validation on the 
input.


Adding a PatternValidator does not work, as first the converter is 
called, and afterwards the validators. Within the validator interface 
there is no chance to access the raw input, so no chance in implementing 
my own validator, and .. too much finals to tweak it in :-).


Is there a way to integrate a  "raw input pattern validator" ?

Thanks !
Tom

p.s.: wicket 1.3.3 and no chance to upgrade, need to stay with java 1.4 
for another year :-/


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Problem: Check within a ListView

[Kai Mütz]

Igor Vaynberg  wrote:
> it is possible, just depends on how you set up your models. it is not
> possible by directly reading the collection of checkgroup, but you
> can come up with a different way.
>

The checkgroup is part of a form based on a CompoundPropertyModel wrapping a
User object which has a "roles" property (List). Nothing special.

Kai


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Best way of validating FileUploadField

[Ned Collyer]

Michael Sparer wrote:
> 
> Might be a bit off-topic, but I just wanted to add that if you're
> validating if the file has the correct content-type you shouldn't rely on
> the getContentType method, as it determines the type just using the
> extension. I did rely on that and to prevent users from uploading annoying
> animated gifs, allowed only jpg and png. Only a few days in production
> someone uploaded an animated gif by just changing the extension .gif to
> .jpg. To check the real type you should use an external tool such as e.g.
> JMimeMagic.
> Just have a look at the proposed approaches on
> http://www.rgagnon.com/javadetails/java-0487.html
> 
> regards,
> Michael
> 

Thanks for the info.

The example I gave was simple and for demo purpose only :) - I'm going to do
a lot of different things  (like checking color depth, bytesize, dimensions
etc).
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/Best-way-of-validating-FileUploadField-tp17662018p1708.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: Does wicket favor composite session obj?

[Johan Compagner]

are you sure you store it correctly?
for example is the LoginData object the same? (if you do a system out of
that or check it in the debugger)
Because if it is then the user field that it should have cant be just
suddenly null

johan


On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 11:47 PM, smallufo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Oops , thanks for your hint
>
> But it seems not working ..
>
> User loginedUser = userDao.getUserFromLoginName(loginName);
> if (loginedUser != null)
> {
>  MySession mySession = (MySession) getSession();
>  mySession .getLoginData().setUser(loginedUser);
>  mySession .dirty(); //add this line
>  setResponsePage(LoginPage.class);
> }
>
> In LoginPage :
> User user = MySession.get().getLoginData().getUser();
> Here , user is still null. Why ?
>
>
>
> 2008/6/5 Maurice Marrink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > Mark the session as dirty. Wicket cannot detect if some property of a
> > pojo has been updated in your session.
> > By marking the session as dirty wicket will (re)save everything.
> >
> > Maurice
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 10:52 PM, smallufo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Thank you .
> > > It solves my confusion.
> > > But I have another question.
> > > It seems wicket can only handle "one-reference" composite session.
> > > That is , a root session object , and a associated session object.
> > > If the associating session object has another associating object , it
> > will
> > > not be saved/updated.
> > >
> > > for example :
> > > MySession.get().getLocation().setCityName("Taipei")
> > > it will automatically save the value.
> > >
> > > But if the Location has another associated object :
> > > MySession.get().getLocation().getCity().setName("Taipei");
> > > After reloading , the city's name is not updated.
> > > It seems wicket cannot save the reference.
> > >
> > > I know maybe MySession.get().getLocation().setCity(new City(...)) can
> > solve
> > > this problem
> > > But is this the only way ?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 2008/6/5 Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > >
> > >> > My question is , if I don't want to use HttpSession (string property
> > is
> > >> > error-prone)
> > >> > I prefer the wicket way.
> > >> > I found if I go the wicket way , it results in the "composite
> session
> > >> > object" , it is correct ?
> > >> >
> > >> > PageAsetting settingA = ((MySession)getSession()).getPageAsetting();
> > >> > PageBsetting settingB = ((MySession)getSession()).getPageBsetting();
> > >>
> > >> Yeah, that looks good.
> > >>
> > >> Btw, in your session class you can do:
> > >>
> > >> public static MySession get() { return (MySession)Session.get(); }
> > >>
> > >> so that you can do:
> > >>
> > >> PageAsetting settingA = MySession.get().getPageAsetting();
> > >>
> > >> which is a bit nicer imho.
> > >>
> > >> > If I have more pages , more settings , I have to "hook" these
> setting
> > >> > objects to the root session object .
> > >> > Is it what wicket's favorable way ?
> > >>
> > >> Yeah, if you're sure these settings should be retained for the
> > >> duration of the whole session, that's what you can do.
> > >>
> > >> 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: Multi-ModalWindow

[freak182]

Hello,
That would be nice if you can do some meebo thing about modal window...you
know,my trigger was came from comet. if i can open-up another window, if
there was a trigger, that would be great...thats why im looking on how to
open-up a new modal window...the tosater are great but i think it did not
fit my requirement..thanks for the ref..

Thanks a lot..Cheers



Nino.Martinez wrote:
> 
> Hmm, Im not sure that actually are a modal window. Arent it more of a 
> stackable toaster?
> 
> 
> This is not directly on the spot, but you'll get the idea. Im working on 
> a toaster using scriptaculous.. 
> 
> If I have the time I could probably do 
> something the lines of that.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.demay-fr.net:8080/WCD13/app/?wicket:bookmarkablePage=%3Awicket.contrib.dojo.examples.ToasterSample
> 
> freak182 wrote:
>> Hello,
>> I saw it..but i dont want a modal window open inside another modal
>> window...what i mean is that in the same page will open another modal
>> window..bcoz i have a trigger that opens a modal window in page (not
>> clicked
>> by the user)...now when a new trigger comes in another modal window
>> should
>> open...or should i say same window instance but different content...just
>> like meebo thing :)
>>
>> Thanks a lot..Cheers
>>
>>
>>
>> Nino.Martinez wrote:
>>   
>>> Everything is possible, is just time that sets the limits. Did you see 
>>> the example?
>>>
>>> http://www.wicket-library.com/wicket-examples/ajax/modal-window.1
>>>
>>> freak182 wrote:
>>> 
 Hello,
 It is possible to have multiple modal window in a page pop-up?what i
 mean
 is
 that, if there is a message from user1, the message pop using modal
 window,
 and modal window will pop too if user2 send message. the modal windowS
 will
 just flood on user browser if other user send messages...is this
 possible?

 Thanks a lot...Cheers
   
   
>>> -- 
>>> -Wicket for love
>>>
>>> Nino Martinez Wael
>>> Java Specialist @ Jayway DK
>>> http://www.jayway.dk
>>> +45 2936 7684
>>>
>>>
>>> -
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>
>>   
> 
> -- 
> -Wicket for love
> 
> Nino Martinez Wael
> Java Specialist @ Jayway DK
> http://www.jayway.dk
> +45 2936 7684
> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/Multi-ModalWindow-tp17662869p17665727.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: Best way of validating FileUploadField

[Michael Sparer]

Might be a bit off-topic, but I just wanted to add that if you're validating
if the file has the correct content-type you shouldn't rely on the
getContentType method, as it determines the type just using the extension. I
did rely on that and to prevent users from uploading annoying animated gifs,
allowed only jpg and png. Only a few days in production someone uploaded an
animated gif by just changing the extension .gif to .jpg. To check the real
type you should use an external tool such as e.g. JMimeMagic.
Just have a look at the proposed approaches on
http://www.rgagnon.com/javadetails/java-0487.html

regards,
Michael

Ned Collyer wrote:
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Raised as https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-1684
> 
> Curiously mentioned in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-300
> but marked as resolved/invalid.
> 
> Rgds
> 
> Ned
> 
> 
> igor.vaynberg wrote:
>> 
>> argh, didnt read closely enough. yes that is the right way to do it,
>> in fact you shouldnt have to do that at all, fileuploadfield should be
>> doing that...
>> 
>> please create a jira ticket, that component is pretty old so it
>> probably got overlooked. multifileuploadfield does it properly
>> already.
>> 
>> -igor
>> 
> 
> 


-
Michael Sparer
http://talk-on-tech.blogspot.com
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/Best-way-of-validating-FileUploadField-tp17662018p17664375.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: Multi-ModalWindow

[Nino Saturnino Martinez Vazquez Wael]

Hmm, Im not sure that actually are a modal window. Arent it more of a 
stackable toaster?



This is not directly on the spot, but you'll get the idea. Im working on 
a toaster using scriptaculous.. If I have the time I could probably do 
something the lines of that.


http://www.demay-fr.net:8080/WCD13/app/?wicket:bookmarkablePage=%3Awicket.contrib.dojo.examples.ToasterSample

freak182 wrote:

Hello,
I saw it..but i dont want a modal window open inside another modal
window...what i mean is that in the same page will open another modal
window..bcoz i have a trigger that opens a modal window in page (not clicked
by the user)...now when a new trigger comes in another modal window should
open...or should i say same window instance but different content...just
like meebo thing :)

Thanks a lot..Cheers



Nino.Martinez wrote:
  
Everything is possible, is just time that sets the limits. Did you see 
the example?


http://www.wicket-library.com/wicket-examples/ajax/modal-window.1

freak182 wrote:


Hello,
It is possible to have multiple modal window in a page pop-up?what i mean
is
that, if there is a message from user1, the message pop using modal
window,
and modal window will pop too if user2 send message. the modal windowS
will
just flood on user browser if other user send messages...is this
possible?

Thanks a lot...Cheers
  
  

--
-Wicket for love

Nino Martinez Wael
Java Specialist @ Jayway DK
http://www.jayway.dk
+45 2936 7684


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]






  


--
-Wicket for love

Nino Martinez Wael
Java Specialist @ Jayway DK
http://www.jayway.dk
+45 2936 7684


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

[Johan Compagner]

like matej already told you
There is no default "slot" or field..
A component with no model doesnt have a a slot what so ever.

johan


On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 11:34 PM, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

> like i said, i dont mind removing the default slot if we add nice
> automatic detachment for fields.
>
> -igor
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 12:23 PM, Eelco Hillenius
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 11:48 AM, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >> i dont think it exposes anything, or that anything is flawed. the
> >> component provides a slot for a default model - it is there totally
> >> out of convinience. i think what is flawed here is that we tied the
> >> two types via generics.
> >
> > It depends on how you phrase things. It is a fact that currently
> > models and components are tightly bound because of 'getModelObject'.
> >
> > The main issue is that with 1.3 you can simply omit the model, whereas
> > with generified components the choice to not use a model is explicit
> > (whether you use void, or an annotation to ignore warnings). Very
> > annoying if you ask me, and it triggered me to think that this is
> > another hint that the one-one relationship between components and
> > models like we have now is somewhat flawed. I'm not saying it totally
> > stinks and that we should get rid of it tomorrow, just that it is
> > something we might rethink. You know I'm a fan of rethinking stuff ;-)
> >
> > 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: jsesionid written into url when using tomcat behind apache & mod_jk

[Nino Saturnino Martinez Vazquez Wael]

Post a cleaninfied version of your apache conf..? Also did you look at 
the wiki, and some time ago I posted an apache conf example... Although 
not using mod_jk...


http://www.nabble.com/Page-templates-per-virtual-host-ts16299142.html#a16328617

it's these bits: 



   ProxyPass /images http://10.0.0.2:8180/context/images
   


   ProxyPass / http://10.0.0.2:8180/context/zeuz/  
   


   ProxyPassReverse / http://10.0.0.2:8180/context/zeuz/
   


   ProxyPassReverseCookiePath /context /   
   




Joel Halbert wrote:

Hi,

This is probably not a wicket related query as such (so apologies) but just in 
case here goes

I have placed our tomcat server behind apache and we are using mod_jk. 
When I do this we see the jsessionid being written out in the url for the very first request response to the user (so we see something like www.dummydomain.com/list;jsessionid=899F7C88CDA2E8A0508651AA89484C6C)


However, I have checked that cookies are being written correctly, and they are. 
Is this something anyone else has seen. Are there any other reasons that the 
cookie might be url encoded on the first request?

Joel

(I also found this post : 
http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A-how-to-resolve-jsessionid-for-the-first-time-in-the-url-ts16347213.html
  but there was no resolution)
  


--
-Wicket for love

Nino Martinez Wael
Java Specialist @ Jayway DK
http://www.jayway.dk
+45 2936 7684


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Multi-ModalWindow

[freak182]

Hello,
I saw it..but i dont want a modal window open inside another modal
window...what i mean is that in the same page will open another modal
window..bcoz i have a trigger that opens a modal window in page (not clicked
by the user)...now when a new trigger comes in another modal window should
open...or should i say same window instance but different content...just
like meebo thing :)

Thanks a lot..Cheers



Nino.Martinez wrote:
> 
> Everything is possible, is just time that sets the limits. Did you see 
> the example?
> 
> http://www.wicket-library.com/wicket-examples/ajax/modal-window.1
> 
> freak182 wrote:
>> Hello,
>> It is possible to have multiple modal window in a page pop-up?what i mean
>> is
>> that, if there is a message from user1, the message pop using modal
>> window,
>> and modal window will pop too if user2 send message. the modal windowS
>> will
>> just flood on user browser if other user send messages...is this
>> possible?
>>
>> Thanks a lot...Cheers
>>   
> 
> -- 
> -Wicket for love
> 
> Nino Martinez Wael
> Java Specialist @ Jayway DK
> http://www.jayway.dk
> +45 2936 7684
> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/Multi-ModalWindow-tp17662869p17664122.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: Multi-ModalWindow

[Nino Saturnino Martinez Vazquez Wael]

Everything is possible, is just time that sets the limits. Did you see 
the example?


http://www.wicket-library.com/wicket-examples/ajax/modal-window.1

freak182 wrote:

Hello,
It is possible to have multiple modal window in a page pop-up?what i mean is
that, if there is a message from user1, the message pop using modal window,
and modal window will pop too if user2 send message. the modal windowS will
just flood on user browser if other user send messages...is this possible?

Thanks a lot...Cheers
  


--
-Wicket for love

Nino Martinez Wael
Java Specialist @ Jayway DK
http://www.jayway.dk
+45 2936 7684


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: how to pass parameters while setting page expired error page

[Johan Compagner]

class SessionExpiredLoginPage extends LoginPage()
{
SessionExpiredLoginPage()
   {
super();
info(xx)
   }
}


On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 6:25 PM, Patel, Sanjay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I want to pass some param so I can know in LoginPage that it is called
> because of session expired and I can show appropriate message (e.g your
> session is expired, please login again.)
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Johan Compagner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 12:11 PM
> To: users@wicket.apache.org
> Subject: Re: how to pass parameters while setting page expired error
> page
>
> What param is that? What info do you want to pass in?
>
>
>
> On 6/4/08, Patel, Sanjay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I want to redirect to LoginPage if session expires and want to show
> > message that "your session expired, please login again."
> > Is there any way that I can pass parameters to LoginPage ??
> >
> > getApplicationSettings().setPageExpiredErrorPage(LoginPage.class);
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Sanjay.
> >
> >
> > -
> > 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]
>
>