Re: [8.3] Nested Forms within a table?
I totally agree,
It should be user choice :)
On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 at 13:45, nino martinez wael <
nino.martinez.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
> normally I would agree.. But when our designer gives us the html, and there
> are tables in it we need to change that stuff.. I do not like the idea that
> the web framework forces you to change markup so that it can work.. One
> thing are to teach the devs that there are some quirks with the web
> framework (thats completely expected). But to have to teach the designer
> about a web framework so they can avoid the quirky parts seems wrong.
>
> Its not part of Wickets statement anyhow.
>
> > Just Java & HTML
> >
> > Leverage what you know about Java or your favourite HTML editor to write
> > Wicket applications. With pure Java code and HTML markup Wicket is the
> > go-to web framework for purists.
> >
>
> /rant off :)
>
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 8:24 AM Maxim Solodovnik
> wrote:
>
> > if something "look like a duck, walk like a duck and sound like a duck" -
> > it is duck :)
> > CSS table are tables, but with no HTML '' tags :)
> >
> > On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 at 13:22, nino martinez wael <
> > nino.martinez.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > if its CSS its not a table right?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 7:25 AM Maxim Solodovnik >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Actually you can :)
> > > > But you need CSS tables for this :)
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 at 11:53, nino martinez wael <
> > > > nino.martinez.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I agree with Maxim, but I do not know the side effects, im going to
> > try
> > > > > it.. As it is now (out of the box), we cannot have nested forms in
> > > tables
> > > > > (for example on form per ) without breaking html.
> > > > >
> > > > > -Nino
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 3:24 AM Maxim Solodovnik <
> > solomax...@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I would say we can create overridable method so users can specify
> > > which
> > > > > tag
> > > > > > to use
> > > > > > it will help with ``
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 at 01:39, Sven Meier
> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think we could improve nested Forms so that only tags
> > are
> > > > > > > turned into a , but anything else stays as it is.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > > > Sven
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Am 23.04.19 um 10:01 schrieb nino martinez wael:
> > > > > > > > Hi
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > When nesting forms, the form tag are changed to an div and it
> > is
> > > > hard
> > > > > > > coded:
> > > > > > > > org/apache/wicket/markup/html/form/Form.java:1597
> > > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > tag.setName("div");
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If only I could change the tag to be tr, it would produce
> valid
> > > > html.
> > > > > > Are
> > > > > > > > it deliberate to be hardcoded?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > -
> > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
> > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > WBR
> > > > > > Maxim aka solomax
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Best regards / Med venlig hilsen
> > > > > Nino Martinez
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > WBR
> > > > Maxim aka solomax
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best regards / Med venlig hilsen
> > > Nino Martinez
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > WBR
> > Maxim aka solomax
> >
>
>
> --
> Best regards / Med venlig hilsen
> Nino Martinez
>
--
WBR
Maxim aka solomax
Re: [8.3] Nested Forms within a table?
normally I would agree.. But when our designer gives us the html, and there
are tables in it we need to change that stuff.. I do not like the idea that
the web framework forces you to change markup so that it can work.. One
thing are to teach the devs that there are some quirks with the web
framework (thats completely expected). But to have to teach the designer
about a web framework so they can avoid the quirky parts seems wrong.
Its not part of Wickets statement anyhow.
> Just Java & HTML
>
> Leverage what you know about Java or your favourite HTML editor to write
> Wicket applications. With pure Java code and HTML markup Wicket is the
> go-to web framework for purists.
>
/rant off :)
On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 8:24 AM Maxim Solodovnik
wrote:
> if something "look like a duck, walk like a duck and sound like a duck" -
> it is duck :)
> CSS table are tables, but with no HTML '' tags :)
>
> On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 at 13:22, nino martinez wael <
> nino.martinez.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > if its CSS its not a table right?
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 7:25 AM Maxim Solodovnik
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Actually you can :)
> > > But you need CSS tables for this :)
> > >
> > > On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 at 11:53, nino martinez wael <
> > > nino.martinez.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I agree with Maxim, but I do not know the side effects, im going to
> try
> > > > it.. As it is now (out of the box), we cannot have nested forms in
> > tables
> > > > (for example on form per ) without breaking html.
> > > >
> > > > -Nino
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 3:24 AM Maxim Solodovnik <
> solomax...@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I would say we can create overridable method so users can specify
> > which
> > > > tag
> > > > > to use
> > > > > it will help with ``
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 at 01:39, Sven Meier wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think we could improve nested Forms so that only tags
> are
> > > > > > turned into a , but anything else stays as it is.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > > Sven
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Am 23.04.19 um 10:01 schrieb nino martinez wael:
> > > > > > > Hi
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > When nesting forms, the form tag are changed to an div and it
> is
> > > hard
> > > > > > coded:
> > > > > > > org/apache/wicket/markup/html/form/Form.java:1597
> > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > tag.setName("div");
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If only I could change the tag to be tr, it would produce valid
> > > html.
> > > > > Are
> > > > > > > it deliberate to be hardcoded?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > -
> > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
> > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > WBR
> > > > > Maxim aka solomax
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Best regards / Med venlig hilsen
> > > > Nino Martinez
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > WBR
> > > Maxim aka solomax
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards / Med venlig hilsen
> > Nino Martinez
> >
>
>
> --
> WBR
> Maxim aka solomax
>
--
Best regards / Med venlig hilsen
Nino Martinez
Re: [8.3] Nested Forms within a table?
if something "look like a duck, walk like a duck and sound like a duck" -
it is duck :)
CSS table are tables, but with no HTML '' tags :)
On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 at 13:22, nino martinez wael <
nino.martinez.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
> if its CSS its not a table right?
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 7:25 AM Maxim Solodovnik
> wrote:
>
> > Actually you can :)
> > But you need CSS tables for this :)
> >
> > On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 at 11:53, nino martinez wael <
> > nino.martinez.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I agree with Maxim, but I do not know the side effects, im going to try
> > > it.. As it is now (out of the box), we cannot have nested forms in
> tables
> > > (for example on form per ) without breaking html.
> > >
> > > -Nino
> > >
> > > On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 3:24 AM Maxim Solodovnik >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I would say we can create overridable method so users can specify
> which
> > > tag
> > > > to use
> > > > it will help with ``
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 at 01:39, Sven Meier wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > I think we could improve nested Forms so that only tags are
> > > > > turned into a , but anything else stays as it is.
> > > > >
> > > > > WDYT?
> > > > > Sven
> > > > >
> > > > > Am 23.04.19 um 10:01 schrieb nino martinez wael:
> > > > > > Hi
> > > > > >
> > > > > > When nesting forms, the form tag are changed to an div and it is
> > hard
> > > > > coded:
> > > > > > org/apache/wicket/markup/html/form/Form.java:1597
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > tag.setName("div");
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If only I could change the tag to be tr, it would produce valid
> > html.
> > > > Are
> > > > > > it deliberate to be hardcoded?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> -
> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > WBR
> > > > Maxim aka solomax
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best regards / Med venlig hilsen
> > > Nino Martinez
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > WBR
> > Maxim aka solomax
> >
>
>
> --
> Best regards / Med venlig hilsen
> Nino Martinez
>
--
WBR
Maxim aka solomax
Re: [8.3] Nested Forms within a table?
if its CSS its not a table right?
On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 7:25 AM Maxim Solodovnik
wrote:
> Actually you can :)
> But you need CSS tables for this :)
>
> On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 at 11:53, nino martinez wael <
> nino.martinez.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I agree with Maxim, but I do not know the side effects, im going to try
> > it.. As it is now (out of the box), we cannot have nested forms in tables
> > (for example on form per ) without breaking html.
> >
> > -Nino
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 3:24 AM Maxim Solodovnik
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I would say we can create overridable method so users can specify which
> > tag
> > > to use
> > > it will help with ``
> > >
> > > On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 at 01:39, Sven Meier wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I think we could improve nested Forms so that only tags are
> > > > turned into a , but anything else stays as it is.
> > > >
> > > > WDYT?
> > > > Sven
> > > >
> > > > Am 23.04.19 um 10:01 schrieb nino martinez wael:
> > > > > Hi
> > > > >
> > > > > When nesting forms, the form tag are changed to an div and it is
> hard
> > > > coded:
> > > > > org/apache/wicket/markup/html/form/Form.java:1597
> > > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > tag.setName("div");
> > > > >
> > > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > If only I could change the tag to be tr, it would produce valid
> html.
> > > Are
> > > > > it deliberate to be hardcoded?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > -
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > WBR
> > > Maxim aka solomax
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards / Med venlig hilsen
> > Nino Martinez
> >
>
>
> --
> WBR
> Maxim aka solomax
>
--
Best regards / Med venlig hilsen
Nino Martinez
Re: [8.3] Nested Forms within a table?
Actually you can :)
But you need CSS tables for this :)
On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 at 11:53, nino martinez wael <
nino.martinez.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree with Maxim, but I do not know the side effects, im going to try
> it.. As it is now (out of the box), we cannot have nested forms in tables
> (for example on form per ) without breaking html.
>
> -Nino
>
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 3:24 AM Maxim Solodovnik
> wrote:
>
> > I would say we can create overridable method so users can specify which
> tag
> > to use
> > it will help with ``
> >
> > On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 at 01:39, Sven Meier wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I think we could improve nested Forms so that only tags are
> > > turned into a , but anything else stays as it is.
> > >
> > > WDYT?
> > > Sven
> > >
> > > Am 23.04.19 um 10:01 schrieb nino martinez wael:
> > > > Hi
> > > >
> > > > When nesting forms, the form tag are changed to an div and it is hard
> > > coded:
> > > > org/apache/wicket/markup/html/form/Form.java:1597
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > tag.setName("div");
> > > >
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > If only I could change the tag to be tr, it would produce valid html.
> > Are
> > > > it deliberate to be hardcoded?
> > > >
> > >
> > > -
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > WBR
> > Maxim aka solomax
> >
>
>
> --
> Best regards / Med venlig hilsen
> Nino Martinez
>
--
WBR
Maxim aka solomax
Re: [8.3] Nested Forms within a table?
I agree with Maxim, but I do not know the side effects, im going to try
it.. As it is now (out of the box), we cannot have nested forms in tables
(for example on form per ) without breaking html.
-Nino
On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 3:24 AM Maxim Solodovnik
wrote:
> I would say we can create overridable method so users can specify which tag
> to use
> it will help with ``
>
> On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 at 01:39, Sven Meier wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I think we could improve nested Forms so that only tags are
> > turned into a , but anything else stays as it is.
> >
> > WDYT?
> > Sven
> >
> > Am 23.04.19 um 10:01 schrieb nino martinez wael:
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > When nesting forms, the form tag are changed to an div and it is hard
> > coded:
> > > org/apache/wicket/markup/html/form/Form.java:1597
> > > ...
> > >
> > > tag.setName("div");
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > If only I could change the tag to be tr, it would produce valid html.
> Are
> > > it deliberate to be hardcoded?
> > >
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
> >
> >
>
> --
> WBR
> Maxim aka solomax
>
--
Best regards / Med venlig hilsen
Nino Martinez
Re: [8.3] Nested Forms within a table?
I would say we can create overridable method so users can specify which tag
to use
it will help with ``
On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 at 01:39, Sven Meier wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think we could improve nested Forms so that only tags are
> turned into a , but anything else stays as it is.
>
> WDYT?
> Sven
>
> Am 23.04.19 um 10:01 schrieb nino martinez wael:
> > Hi
> >
> > When nesting forms, the form tag are changed to an div and it is hard
> coded:
> > org/apache/wicket/markup/html/form/Form.java:1597
> > ...
> >
> > tag.setName("div");
> >
> > ...
> >
> > If only I could change the tag to be tr, it would produce valid html. Are
> > it deliberate to be hardcoded?
> >
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
>
>
--
WBR
Maxim aka solomax
Re: HttpSessionDataStore in Wicket 9
Or was the original version of `GaePageManagerProvider` with 2 sessions
stores actually correct with the first one acting as a non-serialized cache?
Best,
Thomas
On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 9:57 PM Thomas Heigl wrote:
> Hi Sven,
>
> This works, but now we do not have any in-memory caching layer anymore and
> the page has to be deserialized on *every* ajax request.
>
> The API does not "feel" just right as well. It is very hard to understand
> what's going on and why we are overriding the `newSessionStore` method,
> without looking at the whole implementation of `DefaultPageManagerProvider`.
>
> What I'd really like to do is approximate the pre-Wicket 9 behavior of my
> provider implementation:
>
> setPageManagerProvider(new DefaultPageManagerProvider(this) {
>> @Override
>> protected IDataStore newDataStore() {
>> return new HttpSessionDataStore(getPageManagerContext(), new
>> PageNumberEvictionStrategy(10));
>> }
>> });
>
>
> If I understand the previous implementation correctly, the store chain in
> Wicket 8 with my configuration would have looked something like this:
>
> RequestStore -> *SessionCache* (in PageStoreManager) -> InSessionStore
>
> After every request, touched pages are stored in the session cache and do
> not have to be deserialized on the next request to the same page.
>
> This setup works very well for us and since we have an application with a
> ton of concurrent users, I want to keep the configuration as close to the
> Wicket 8 implementation as possible when upgrading to Wicket 9.
>
> I guess we can get close to the Wicket 8 setup by using the following
> chain, but I'm not sure if it will behave the same and have the same memory
> requirements:
>
> RequestStore -> *InMemoryStore* (size per session = 1) -> InSessionStore
>
> Do you have any other ideas on this?
>
> If we find the right configuration, you could also add other default
> implementations of `IPageManagerProvider` that make it easier for users
> with custom setups to migrate to the new version without the strange noop
> method overrides.
>
> Best,
>
> Thomas
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 8:39 PM Sven Meier wrote:
>
>> Hi Thomas,
>>
>> you're right, I've changed it to single InSessionStore.
>>
>> Have fun
>> Sven
>>
>> Am 23.04.19 um 09:06 schrieb Thomas Heigl:
>> > Hi Sven,
>> >
>> > Thanks a lot for the quick reply!
>> >
>> > Are you sure the code in GaePageManagerProvider is correct? Don't we
>> end up
>> > with two instances of InSessionPageStore in this case? Once as
>> > `newSessionStore` and once as `newPersistentStore`?
>> >
>> > The resulting chain looks like this: RequestSore -> *InSessionStore* ->
>> > AsynchronousStore -> SerializingStore -> CryptingStore ->
>> *InSessionStore*
>> >
>> > Best,
>> >
>> > Thomas
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 10:57 PM Sven Meier wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi Thomas,
>> >>
>> >> many thanks for testing so early!
>> >>
>> >> Set a custom provider of the page manager, see wicketstuff's
>> >> gae-initializer as an example:
>> >>
>> >> application.setPageManagerProvider(new
>> >> GaePageManagerProvider(application, maxPages));
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> https://github.com/wicketstuff/core/blob/master/gae-initializer-parent/gae-initializer/src/main/java/org/wicketstuff/gae/GaePageManagerProvider.java
>> >>
>> >> Have fun
>> >> Sven
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Am 22.04.19 um 18:47 schrieb Thomas Heigl:
>> >>> Hi all,
>> >>>
>> >>> I just experimentally upgraded my application to 9.0.0-M1. Most things
>> >> are
>> >>> straight forward, but I'm struggling with replicating my current page
>> >>> manager configuration using the new API.
>> >>>
>> >>> My current configuration for Wicket 8 looks like this:
>> >>>
>> >>> setPageManagerProvider(new DefaultPageManagerProvider(this) {
>> @Override
>> protected IDataStore newDataStore() {
>> return new HttpSessionDataStore(getPageManagerContext(), new
>> PageNumberEvictionStrategy(10));
>> }
>> });
>> >>> What is the Wicket 9 equivalent of this?
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks,
>> >>>
>> >>> Thomas
>> >>>
>>
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
>>
>>
Re: HttpSessionDataStore in Wicket 9
Hi Sven,
This works, but now we do not have any in-memory caching layer anymore and
the page has to be deserialized on *every* ajax request.
The API does not "feel" just right as well. It is very hard to understand
what's going on and why we are overriding the `newSessionStore` method,
without looking at the whole implementation of `DefaultPageManagerProvider`.
What I'd really like to do is approximate the pre-Wicket 9 behavior of my
provider implementation:
setPageManagerProvider(new DefaultPageManagerProvider(this) {
> @Override
> protected IDataStore newDataStore() {
> return new HttpSessionDataStore(getPageManagerContext(), new
> PageNumberEvictionStrategy(10));
> }
> });
If I understand the previous implementation correctly, the store chain in
Wicket 8 with my configuration would have looked something like this:
RequestStore -> *SessionCache* (in PageStoreManager) -> InSessionStore
After every request, touched pages are stored in the session cache and do
not have to be deserialized on the next request to the same page.
This setup works very well for us and since we have an application with a
ton of concurrent users, I want to keep the configuration as close to the
Wicket 8 implementation as possible when upgrading to Wicket 9.
I guess we can get close to the Wicket 8 setup by using the following
chain, but I'm not sure if it will behave the same and have the same memory
requirements:
RequestStore -> *InMemoryStore* (size per session = 1) -> InSessionStore
Do you have any other ideas on this?
If we find the right configuration, you could also add other default
implementations of `IPageManagerProvider` that make it easier for users
with custom setups to migrate to the new version without the strange noop
method overrides.
Best,
Thomas
On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 8:39 PM Sven Meier wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> you're right, I've changed it to single InSessionStore.
>
> Have fun
> Sven
>
> Am 23.04.19 um 09:06 schrieb Thomas Heigl:
> > Hi Sven,
> >
> > Thanks a lot for the quick reply!
> >
> > Are you sure the code in GaePageManagerProvider is correct? Don't we end
> up
> > with two instances of InSessionPageStore in this case? Once as
> > `newSessionStore` and once as `newPersistentStore`?
> >
> > The resulting chain looks like this: RequestSore -> *InSessionStore* ->
> > AsynchronousStore -> SerializingStore -> CryptingStore ->
> *InSessionStore*
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Thomas
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 10:57 PM Sven Meier wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Thomas,
> >>
> >> many thanks for testing so early!
> >>
> >> Set a custom provider of the page manager, see wicketstuff's
> >> gae-initializer as an example:
> >>
> >> application.setPageManagerProvider(new
> >> GaePageManagerProvider(application, maxPages));
> >>
> >>
> >>
> https://github.com/wicketstuff/core/blob/master/gae-initializer-parent/gae-initializer/src/main/java/org/wicketstuff/gae/GaePageManagerProvider.java
> >>
> >> Have fun
> >> Sven
> >>
> >>
> >> Am 22.04.19 um 18:47 schrieb Thomas Heigl:
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> I just experimentally upgraded my application to 9.0.0-M1. Most things
> >> are
> >>> straight forward, but I'm struggling with replicating my current page
> >>> manager configuration using the new API.
> >>>
> >>> My current configuration for Wicket 8 looks like this:
> >>>
> >>> setPageManagerProvider(new DefaultPageManagerProvider(this) {
> @Override
> protected IDataStore newDataStore() {
> return new HttpSessionDataStore(getPageManagerContext(), new
> PageNumberEvictionStrategy(10));
> }
> });
> >>> What is the Wicket 9 equivalent of this?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>>
> >>> Thomas
> >>>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
>
>
Re: [8.3] Nested Forms within a table?
Hi,
I think we could improve nested Forms so that only tags are
turned into a , but anything else stays as it is.
WDYT?
Sven
Am 23.04.19 um 10:01 schrieb nino martinez wael:
Hi
When nesting forms, the form tag are changed to an div and it is hard coded:
org/apache/wicket/markup/html/form/Form.java:1597
...
tag.setName("div");
...
If only I could change the tag to be tr, it would produce valid html. Are
it deliberate to be hardcoded?
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
Re: HttpSessionDataStore in Wicket 9
Hi Thomas,
you're right, I've changed it to single InSessionStore.
Have fun
Sven
Am 23.04.19 um 09:06 schrieb Thomas Heigl:
Hi Sven,
Thanks a lot for the quick reply!
Are you sure the code in GaePageManagerProvider is correct? Don't we end up
with two instances of InSessionPageStore in this case? Once as
`newSessionStore` and once as `newPersistentStore`?
The resulting chain looks like this: RequestSore -> *InSessionStore* ->
AsynchronousStore -> SerializingStore -> CryptingStore -> *InSessionStore*
Best,
Thomas
On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 10:57 PM Sven Meier wrote:
Hi Thomas,
many thanks for testing so early!
Set a custom provider of the page manager, see wicketstuff's
gae-initializer as an example:
application.setPageManagerProvider(new
GaePageManagerProvider(application, maxPages));
https://github.com/wicketstuff/core/blob/master/gae-initializer-parent/gae-initializer/src/main/java/org/wicketstuff/gae/GaePageManagerProvider.java
Have fun
Sven
Am 22.04.19 um 18:47 schrieb Thomas Heigl:
Hi all,
I just experimentally upgraded my application to 9.0.0-M1. Most things
are
straight forward, but I'm struggling with replicating my current page
manager configuration using the new API.
My current configuration for Wicket 8 looks like this:
setPageManagerProvider(new DefaultPageManagerProvider(this) {
@Override
protected IDataStore newDataStore() {
return new HttpSessionDataStore(getPageManagerContext(), new
PageNumberEvictionStrategy(10));
}
});
What is the Wicket 9 equivalent of this?
Thanks,
Thomas
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
Downport WICKET-6639 to Wicket 7
Hello, Would appreciate if you put https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-6639 on Wicket 7 as well. Thanks, Stepan. -- Sent from: http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/Users-forum-f1842947.html - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
Re: Untouching pages in Wicket 9
Hi Sven, I have some types of ajax behavior callback (timers, lazy-loading) that do not really touch the page and I want to avoid serialization. It's basically the same use case as the original ticket: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-5933 It would be great if we had some mechanism to mark a request as "non-touching" in Wicket 9. Either via "getPageManager().untouch()" or some other mechanism. Best, Thomas On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 1:44 PM Sven Meier wrote: > > > Hi Thomas, > > > > you're right, that method is no longer available. > > > > What do you use it for? Do you want to throw away the current page > changes, but still keep an older state in the persistent page store? > > > > Thanks > > Sven > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 22.04.2019 at 19:19,wrote: > > > > > > Hi all, What is the equivalent of the following line in Wicket 9? > Session.get().getPageManager().untouch(content.getPage()) There is only > `removePage` now, but it doesn't do the same thing as far as I can see. Is > it still possible to untouch pages in ajax requests so they won't be > serialized again? Best, Thomas > > >
Re: Untouching pages in Wicket 9
Hi Thomas, you're right, that method is no longer available. What do you use it for? Do you want to throw away the current page changes, but still keep an older state in the persistent page store? Thanks Sven > > On 22.04.2019 at 19:19,wrote: > > > Hi all, What is the equivalent of the following line in Wicket 9? > Session.get().getPageManager().untouch(content.getPage()) There is only > `removePage` now, but it doesn't do the same thing as far as I can see. Is it > still possible to untouch pages in ajax requests so they won't be serialized > again? Best, Thomas >
[8.3] Nested Forms within a table?
Hi
When nesting forms, the form tag are changed to an div and it is hard coded:
org/apache/wicket/markup/html/form/Form.java:1597
...
tag.setName("div");
...
If only I could change the tag to be tr, it would produce valid html. Are
it deliberate to be hardcoded?
--
Best regards / Med venlig hilsen
Nino Martinez
Re: HttpSessionDataStore in Wicket 9
Hi Sven,
Thanks a lot for the quick reply!
Are you sure the code in GaePageManagerProvider is correct? Don't we end up
with two instances of InSessionPageStore in this case? Once as
`newSessionStore` and once as `newPersistentStore`?
The resulting chain looks like this: RequestSore -> *InSessionStore* ->
AsynchronousStore -> SerializingStore -> CryptingStore -> *InSessionStore*
Best,
Thomas
On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 10:57 PM Sven Meier wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> many thanks for testing so early!
>
> Set a custom provider of the page manager, see wicketstuff's
> gae-initializer as an example:
>
> application.setPageManagerProvider(new
> GaePageManagerProvider(application, maxPages));
>
>
> https://github.com/wicketstuff/core/blob/master/gae-initializer-parent/gae-initializer/src/main/java/org/wicketstuff/gae/GaePageManagerProvider.java
>
> Have fun
> Sven
>
>
> Am 22.04.19 um 18:47 schrieb Thomas Heigl:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I just experimentally upgraded my application to 9.0.0-M1. Most things
> are
> > straight forward, but I'm struggling with replicating my current page
> > manager configuration using the new API.
> >
> > My current configuration for Wicket 8 looks like this:
> >
> > setPageManagerProvider(new DefaultPageManagerProvider(this) {
> >> @Override
> >> protected IDataStore newDataStore() {
> >> return new HttpSessionDataStore(getPageManagerContext(), new
> >> PageNumberEvictionStrategy(10));
> >> }
> >> });
> >
> > What is the Wicket 9 equivalent of this?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Thomas
> >
>
