Re: readering strategy of the 'head' section
Hi Dan, Thanks for the example. On Mar 24, 2013, at 7:26 PM, Dan Retzlaff dretzl...@gmail.com wrote: Re: duplicate/conflicting contributions, Wicket automatically de-dups header contributions. See HeaderItem#getRenderTokens(). Since Wicket itself pulls in JQuery, your app's use of it should be configured through IJavaScriptLibrarySettings as shown here. Is that still the case when you have components that use different versions of jQuery, because the components come from different libraries? Guess not, but will give it a try. Harrie hhazewin...@gmail.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
Re: readering strategy of the 'head' section
I've managed to avoid dealing with multiple versions of jQuery on the same page. That sounds like a Bad Idea, and probably not necessary since in my experience jQuery does a good job being backwards compatible. But if you really must, http://api.jquery.com/jQuery.noConflict/ may be your ticket. On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 11:22 PM, Harrie Hazewinkel hhazewin...@gmail.comwrote: Hi Dan, Thanks for the example. On Mar 24, 2013, at 7:26 PM, Dan Retzlaff dretzl...@gmail.com wrote: Re: duplicate/conflicting contributions, Wicket automatically de-dups header contributions. See HeaderItem#getRenderTokens(). Since Wicket itself pulls in JQuery, your app's use of it should be configured through IJavaScriptLibrarySettings as shown here. Is that still the case when you have components that use different versions of jQuery, because the components come from different libraries? Guess not, but will give it a try. Harrie hhazewin...@gmail.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
Re: readering strategy of the 'head' section
Hallo, I understand that potentially things could be overridden at a lower child. Although, you can have the same in the opposite direction. Same counts for bugs, but the beauty would be the flexibility I would say. On top of that, I am wondering how others use it than in combination with jQuery. Typically, jQuery has some element specific javascript and css, but rely on the common jQuery (file jqeury-min.js). If now all is driven from the lower childs you cannot place the common jQuery in the toplevel page from which all pages inherit and if a lower child adds the common jQuery you may end up with multiple (potentailly even different versions as well). Therefore, I am curious how most people use it with jQuery as I would say adding a single line in the html from which pages inherit from is way easier then putting a this in Java code. I understand the point of view that you may try to avoid a ParentFHRS, but disagree that core-developers make such a choice for others. So deprecating it sounds not the way to go for me, it reduces maybe the burden of maintaining it by core developers, but for sure also reduces the flexibility of using Wicket. Harrie hhazewin...@gmail.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
Re: readering strategy of the 'head' section
We add a site-wide IHeaderContributor in Application#init()
using getHeaderContributorListenerCollection(). Our initial implementation
used wicket:head contributions as you do. This became difficult to
maintain when we had multiple top-level pages. (Your site has only one
top-level page?) We also require programmatic switches to conditionally
include various third-party analytics and customer support chat widget.
This is most easy accomplished for us at the application level. Here is a
snippet of this global decorator to give you an idea.
@Override
public void renderHead(IHeaderResponse response) {
response.render(StringHeaderItem.forString(
link rel=\shortcut icon\ type=\image/vnd.microsoft.icon\
href=\/images/favicon.ico\/);
response.render(JavaScriptHeaderItem.forReference(
Application.get().getJavaScriptLibrarySettings().getJQueryReference()));
response.render(Assets.BOOTSTRAP_JS);
response.render(Assets.GLOBAL_JS);
I agree with the point that each component should make its dependencies
clear in its renderHead(), but our jQuery and Bootstrap dependencies are so
pervasive that we got lazy. It makes our components less reusable across
different apps, but that is not an immediate concern for us.
Re: duplicate/conflicting contributions, Wicket automatically de-dups
header contributions. See HeaderItem#getRenderTokens(). Since Wicket itself
pulls in JQuery, your app's use of it should be configured
through IJavaScriptLibrarySettings as shown here.
Dan
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 10:29 AM, Harrie Hazewinkel
hhazewin...@gmail.comwrote:
Hallo,
I understand that potentially things could be overridden at a lower child.
Although,
you can have the same in the opposite direction. Same counts for bugs, but
the
beauty would be the flexibility I would say.
On top of that, I am wondering how others use it than in combination with
jQuery.
Typically, jQuery has some element specific javascript and css, but rely
on the
common jQuery (file jqeury-min.js). If now all is driven from the lower
childs you
cannot place the common jQuery in the toplevel page from which all pages
inherit
and if a lower child adds the common jQuery you may end up with multiple
(potentailly even different versions as well).
Therefore, I am curious how most people use it with jQuery as I would say
adding a single line in the html from which pages inherit from is way
easier then
putting a this in Java code.
I understand the point of view that you may try to avoid a ParentFHRS, but
disagree that core-developers make such a choice for others. So
deprecating it
sounds not the way to go for me, it reduces maybe the burden of
maintaining it
by core developers, but for sure also reduces the flexibility of using
Wicket.
Harrie
hhazewin...@gmail.com
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
readering strategy of the 'head' section
Hello, I recently upgraded from wicket 1.5 to 6. This is mostly not a real problem. However, I believe that the complete change of the header render strategy is not compatible. This is also mentioned in various places. Wicket 1.5 may not have been consistent in for the header rendering, but why not trying to maintain some easy compatibility? As Wicket 1.5 used a parent first render strategy, I can find still ways that Wicket 6 can support this. Why not supporting this in the applications settings either? It eases upgrades of big projects and overcomes a way that there is a lot of code to be added in Java. Wondering if more people believe a better support for the ParentFirstHeaderRenderStrategy is wished for instaed of adding renderHead code all over. Or do I miss something? Harrie hhazewin...@gmail.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
Re: readering strategy of the 'head' section
Hi, The change to use ChildFirstHeaderRenderStrategy by default was introduced in 1.5.0. The usage of a system property to switch the strategy was intentional - to make it harder. Wicket developers believe that ParentFirstHeaderRenderStrategy should not be used. But there was a bug that wicket:head didn't followed the rules. In 6.0 both Java and HTML contributions became more consistent. Additionally now the application developer can promote the HeaderItems by wrapping them in PriorityHeaderItem. Yet another way is to use custom org.apache.wicket.settings.IResourceSettings#setHeaderItemComparator. What is your usecase to prefer ParentFirstHeaderRenderStrategy ? On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Harrie Hazewinkel hhazewin...@gmail.comwrote: Hello, I recently upgraded from wicket 1.5 to 6. This is mostly not a real problem. However, I believe that the complete change of the header render strategy is not compatible. This is also mentioned in various places. Wicket 1.5 may not have been consistent in for the header rendering, but why not trying to maintain some easy compatibility? As Wicket 1.5 used a parent first render strategy, I can find still ways that Wicket 6 can support this. Why not supporting this in the applications settings either? It eases upgrades of big projects and overcomes a way that there is a lot of code to be added in Java. Wondering if more people believe a better support for the ParentFirstHeaderRenderStrategy is wished for instaed of adding renderHead code all over. Or do I miss something? Harrie hhazewin...@gmail.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org -- Martin Grigorov jWeekend Training, Consulting, Development http://jWeekend.com http://jweekend.com/
Re: readering strategy of the 'head' section
Hello, After the upgrade to 6.x I found that the order of the headers were reverse compared to 1.5. This caused the com.googlecode.wicket.jquery.ui.form.datepicker.DatePicker to fail as it did not wanted to display the popup to pick the date in a panel. The problem was that it depended on common jquery that was added in a parent page. Then by using the ParentFirstHeaderRenderStrategy this worked again and NO other code changes were needed. But speaking of a general usecase, I see that you can then simply follow the page structure and panel structure as how also the page inheritance goes and the panel inheritance as well. Common things go in the parent page or panel and only specifics go into the page or panel itself. Also what I found was that html header elements like 'title' were not place in the beginning of the header anymore (which I believe is nicer to have it before javascript includes). A title element I mostly added in the base page of my application of which all other pages inherited from. Although, I do not understand why wicket developers (and I assume you mean the core developers and not those developers using the framework) do not like a parent first strategy, I simply would say…. Wicket is modular and pluggable in many ways. Why would wicket developers force this to there users by not allowing it? Given the framework supports this almost already, leave this as a choice to the users to select it as what would be the best for them. Of course, a default implementation can be the preferred way of the wicket developers, but allowing users there own choice. Harrie On Mar 21, 2013, at 9:20 AM, Martin Grigorov mgrigo...@apache.org wrote: Hi, The change to use ChildFirstHeaderRenderStrategy by default was introduced in 1.5.0. The usage of a system property to switch the strategy was intentional - to make it harder. Wicket developers believe that ParentFirstHeaderRenderStrategy should not be used. But there was a bug that wicket:head didn't followed the rules. In 6.0 both Java and HTML contributions became more consistent. Additionally now the application developer can promote the HeaderItems by wrapping them in PriorityHeaderItem. Yet another way is to use custom org.apache.wicket.settings.IResourceSettings#setHeaderItemComparator. What is your usecase to prefer ParentFirstHeaderRenderStrategy ? On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Harrie Hazewinkel hhazewin...@gmail.comwrote: Hello, I recently upgraded from wicket 1.5 to 6. This is mostly not a real problem. However, I believe that the complete change of the header render strategy is not compatible. This is also mentioned in various places. Wicket 1.5 may not have been consistent in for the header rendering, but why not trying to maintain some easy compatibility? As Wicket 1.5 used a parent first render strategy, I can find still ways that Wicket 6 can support this. Why not supporting this in the applications settings either? It eases upgrades of big projects and overcomes a way that there is a lot of code to be added in Java. Wondering if more people believe a better support for the ParentFirstHeaderRenderStrategy is wished for instaed of adding renderHead code all over. Or do I miss something? Harrie hhazewin...@gmail.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org -- Martin Grigorov jWeekend Training, Consulting, Development http://jWeekend.com http://jweekend.com/ Harrie hhazewin...@gmail.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
