Re: VOTE accept fix to WICKET-432 into 1.2.x
On 3/31/07, Martijn Dashorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: How does this affect people that have overridden Page.onAttach() but don't call super()? I saw that you fixed that first commit. +1 Martijn -- Learn Wicket at ApacheCon Europe: http://apachecon.com Join the wicket community at irc.freenode.net: ##wicket Wicket 1.2.5 will keep your server alive. Download Wicket now! http://wicketframework.org
Re: VOTE accept fix to WICKET-432 into 1.2.x
How does this affect people that have overridden Page.onAttach() but don't call super()? Martijn
Re: ajaxsubmitbutton and html tag
fixed in 1.x branch -igor On 3/30/07, Alexei Sokolov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hello, At the moment it is not possible to attach AjaxSubmitButton to HTML tag. Can somebody fix it? Alex
Re: VOTE accept fix to WICKET-432 into 1.2.x
+1 Eelco On 3/30/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: the subject says it all. i kinda jumped the gun on this one and committed already by mistake :( my appologies. if the vote doesnt pass i will revert it. -igor
Re: VOTE accept fix to WICKET-432 into 1.2.x
+1 -igor On 3/30/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: the subject says it all. i kinda jumped the gun on this one and committed already by mistake :( my appologies. if the vote doesnt pass i will revert it. -igor
VOTE accept fix to WICKET-432 into 1.2.x
the subject says it all. i kinda jumped the gun on this one and committed already by mistake :( my appologies. if the vote doesnt pass i will revert it. -igor
ajaxsubmitbutton and html tag
Hello, At the moment it is not possible to attach AjaxSubmitButton to HTML tag. Can somebody fix it? Alex
Re: Vote: A few small changes
i think you should propose a new merged vote then. ;-) Eelco Hillenius wrote: > > Can we also take the items outlined here into account? > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-435 > > I'm pro those changes, but I'd like to look at the issues stated there > before putting my vote. > > Eelco > > > On 3/30/07, Jonathan Locke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> Please vote +1/-1 all or per-item if you disagree with some but not >> others: >> >> - make getRootModel(IModel) protected - i don't care much about this, it >> just seems like harmless functionality to inherit >> >> - make a public getRootModel() method that returns >> getRootModel(getModel()) >> - this one is necessary to my current annotation driven validation code. >> i >> have this exact method cut and pasted into my code and it seems like a >> method that could be useful to others and couldn't possibly hurt anything >> if >> it were public (although i think it should be final to prevent abuse). >> >> - add getNestedModel back to CompoundModel and rename that target field >> to >> nestedModel - consistency that eelco was wanting >> >> - IWrapModel->IModelWrapper - this is really an IModel that wraps >> another >> IModel, making it an IModelWrapper >> >> - IAssignmentAwareModel->IComponentAssignedModel - putting component in >> the >> name makes it more obvious that this is about component assignment and >> not >> some other kind of assignment. the model is being assigned to the >> component. assignment aware does not say anything about what kind of >> assignment the model is aware of. >> >> - IInheritableModel->IComponentInheritedModel - same thing here. a >> component inherited model brings to mind compound property models, which >> is >> right on, while IInheritableModel might suggest Java inheritance or some >> other kind of inheritance. this name suggests that this is a model that >> can >> be inherited by components. >> >> >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://www.nabble.com/Vote%3A-A-few-small-changes-tf3494020.html#a9759022 >> Sent from the Wicket - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> >> > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Vote%3A-A-few-small-changes-tf3494020.html#a9762280 Sent from the Wicket - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Vote: A few small changes
Can we also take the items outlined here into account? https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-435 I'm pro those changes, but I'd like to look at the issues stated there before putting my vote. Eelco On 3/30/07, Jonathan Locke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Please vote +1/-1 all or per-item if you disagree with some but not others: - make getRootModel(IModel) protected - i don't care much about this, it just seems like harmless functionality to inherit - make a public getRootModel() method that returns getRootModel(getModel()) - this one is necessary to my current annotation driven validation code. i have this exact method cut and pasted into my code and it seems like a method that could be useful to others and couldn't possibly hurt anything if it were public (although i think it should be final to prevent abuse). - add getNestedModel back to CompoundModel and rename that target field to nestedModel - consistency that eelco was wanting - IWrapModel->IModelWrapper - this is really an IModel that wraps another IModel, making it an IModelWrapper - IAssignmentAwareModel->IComponentAssignedModel - putting component in the name makes it more obvious that this is about component assignment and not some other kind of assignment. the model is being assigned to the component. assignment aware does not say anything about what kind of assignment the model is aware of. - IInheritableModel->IComponentInheritedModel - same thing here. a component inherited model brings to mind compound property models, which is right on, while IInheritableModel might suggest Java inheritance or some other kind of inheritance. this name suggests that this is a model that can be inherited by components. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Vote%3A-A-few-small-changes-tf3494020.html#a9759022 Sent from the Wicket - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Vote: A few small changes
Please vote +1/-1 all or per-item if you disagree with some but not others: - make getRootModel(IModel) protected - i don't care much about this, it just seems like harmless functionality to inherit - make a public getRootModel() method that returns getRootModel(getModel()) - this one is necessary to my current annotation driven validation code. i have this exact method cut and pasted into my code and it seems like a method that could be useful to others and couldn't possibly hurt anything if it were public (although i think it should be final to prevent abuse). - add getNestedModel back to CompoundModel and rename that target field to nestedModel - consistency that eelco was wanting - IWrapModel->IModelWrapper - this is really an IModel that wraps another IModel, making it an IModelWrapper - IAssignmentAwareModel->IComponentAssignedModel - putting component in the name makes it more obvious that this is about component assignment and not some other kind of assignment. the model is being assigned to the component. assignment aware does not say anything about what kind of assignment the model is aware of. - IInheritableModel->IComponentInheritedModel - same thing here. a component inherited model brings to mind compound property models, which is right on, while IInheritableModel might suggest Java inheritance or some other kind of inheritance. this name suggests that this is a model that can be inherited by components. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Vote%3A-A-few-small-changes-tf3494020.html#a9759022 Sent from the Wicket - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: svn commit: r523920 - /incubator/wicket/branches/wicket-1.x/jdk-1.4/wicket/src/main/java/wicket/Component.java
On 3/30/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: well, however you fix it, imho the way it is now is broken. No that's reversing it. It was truly broken, as it wasn't called at all (in fact I committed the check on isEnabled just a couple of days ago). Your concern is that it still not may work at all times (if people forget to call super) which is quite a different thing. I'm also hoping that whoever wrote the original method chimes in here. Eelco
Re: svn commit: r523920 - /incubator/wicket/branches/wicket-1.x/jdk-1.4/wicket/src/main/java/wicket/Component.java
well, however you fix it, imho the way it is now is broken.
-igor
On 3/30/07, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It seemed a bit odd to me to punish our users with multiple calls
because of something we didn't design well in the first place. Typical
case of where we should have provided an empty template method. It
would have my preference to fix that rather than doing the isEnabled
call twice.
Eelco
On 3/29/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> i think you should leave the isenabled check. isbehavioraccepted does
it,
> sure. but as users override it, will they remember to call super? its
not in
> javadoc and is not enforced. and if they do not call super they can
override
> what is behavior's choice not the components.
>
> -igor
>
>
> On 3/29/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Author: ehillenius
> > Date: Thu Mar 29 20:31:46 2007
> > New Revision: 523920
> >
> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=523920
> > Log:
> > header contributions test on isBehaviorAccepted
> >
> > Modified:
> > incubator/wicket/branches/wicket-1.x/jdk-1.4
> > /wicket/src/main/java/wicket/Component.java
> >
> > Modified: incubator/wicket/branches/wicket-1.x/jdk-1.4
> > /wicket/src/main/java/wicket/Component.java
> > URL:
> >
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/wicket/branches/wicket-1.x/jdk-1.4/wicket/src/main/java/wicket/Component.java?view=diff&rev=523920&r1=523919&r2=523920
> >
> >
==
> > --- incubator/wicket/branches/wicket-1.x/jdk-1.4
/wicket/src/main/java/wicket/Component.java
> > (original)
> > +++ incubator/wicket/branches/wicket-1.x/jdk-1.4
/wicket/src/main/java/wicket/Component.java
> > Thu Mar 29 20:31:46 2007
> > @@ -1812,7 +1812,7 @@
> > while (iter.hasNext())
> > {
> > IBehavior behavior =
> > (IBehavior)iter.next();
> > - if (behavior instanceof
> > IHeaderContributor && behavior.isEnabled(this))
> > + if (behavior instanceof
> > IHeaderContributor && isBehaviorAccepted(behavior))
> > {
> >
> >
((IHeaderContributor)behavior).renderHead(
> > container.getHeaderResponse());
> > }
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: [proposal] message to ipmc to ratify the release
Given that the US is sound asleep (at least I hope), I'll post now. All continents had their share of time to review and no serious concerns were raised. Martijn On 3/29/07, Martijn Dashorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Tried that but couldn't find the link. Thx... I'll update the link. Martijn On 3/29/07, Gwyn Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Strictly, it should link to > http://cwiki.apache.org/WICKET/wicket-130-incubating-alpha-1.html > > /Gwyn > > On 29/03/07, Martijn Dashorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I added the following: > > > > If you find any missing or incorrect license headers, we have a list > > of specific files we found to be exempt of the license issue, because > > they are either non-creative, generated or used as test comparison > > material. [3] > > > > > > [3] http://tinyurl.com/2hmkzl (list of license header files) > > > > > > > > On 3/29/07, Martijn Dashorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Good one! now... where did I leave that mesasge of Frank... > > > > > > Martijn > > > > > > On 3/29/07, Gwyn Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Should we be pointing toward any explanation/summary of what's got > > > > licence headers vs what's not? > > > > > > > > Just wondering if we're going that have questions raised on that, that > > > > we might be able to try & satisfy, or at least respond to, as part of > > > > the email. > > > > > > > > /Gwyn > > > > > > > > On 29/03/07, Martijn Dashorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Comments are welcomed: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The Wicket community voted to release its first incubator release. [1] > > > > > Wicket is a component based Java web application framework, undergoing > > > > > incubation since october 2006. The Wicket community asks the Incubator > > > > > PMC to ratify this release. > > > > > > > > > > We consider this release to be for resolving legal issues only, and > > > > > will not make it available to the general public. The reasoning behind > > > > > this is that we are still working on some major changes that need time > > > > > to mature in these weeks. These changes are a direct result of the > > > > > decision by the Wicket community to discontinue development on trunk > > > > > (a full discussion can be found here [2]). As such we discourage our > > > > > users to use this release, because it will not give them a stable > > > > > platform to work with. > > > > > > > > > > However, in light of our incubation progress we feel the urge to get > > > > > confirmation that we resolved our legal issues and are able to come > > > > > together and build a release. We kindly request the Incubator PMC to > > > > > approve this release. > > > > > > > > > > The following artifacts are part of this release: > > > > > > > > > > The source and binary distribution (in one package): > > > > > - http://people.apache.org/~dashorst/releases/apache-wicket-1.3.0-incubating-alpha/dist > > > > > > > > > > A maven 2 repository containing the released binary artifacts: > > > > > - http://people.apache.org/~dashorst/releases/apache-wicket-1.3.0-incubating-alpha/repo > > > > > > > > > > The key file used for signing this release: > > > > > - https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/wicket/common/KEYS > > > > > > > > > > The branch in subversion containing the released files: > > > > > - https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/wicket/releases/wicket-1.3.0-incubating-alpha/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] http://tinyurl.com/yoxea > > > > > [2] http://tinyurl.com/24p23x > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Learn Wicket at ApacheCon Europe: http://apachecon.com > > > > > Join the wicket community at irc.freenode.net: ##wicket > > > > > Wicket 1.2.5 will keep your server alive. Download Wicket now! > > > > > http://wicketframework.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Download Wicket 1.2.5 now! - http://wicketframework.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Learn Wicket at ApacheCon Europe: http://apachecon.com > > > Join the wicket community at irc.freenode.net: ##wicket > > > Wicket 1.2.5 will keep your server alive. Download Wicket now! > > > http://wicketframework.org > > > > > > > > > -- > > Learn Wicket at ApacheCon Europe: http://apachecon.com > > Join the wicket community at irc.freenode.net: ##wicket > > Wicket 1.2.5 will keep your server alive. Download Wicket now! > > http://wicketframework.org > > > > > -- > Download Wicket 1.2.5 now! - http://wicketframework.org > -- Learn Wicket at ApacheCon Europe: http://apachecon.com Join the wicket community at irc.freenode.net: ##wicket Wicket 1.2.5 will keep your server alive. Download Wicket now! http://wicketframework.org -- Learn Wicket at ApacheCon Europe: http://apachecon.com Join the wicket community at irc.freenode.net: ##wicket Wicket 1.2.5 will keep your server alive. Download Wicket now! http://wicketframework.org
Re: Bean properties
Petr, In what way do you think it might be useful? Personally, I think that interoperability between bean-properties and existing code would be more cumbersome then staying with getters/setters. Regards, Erik. Petr Sakar wrote: Can be of some use for wicket ? http://www.theserverside.com/news/thread.tss?thread_id=44804 https://bean-properties.dev.java.net/ saki -- Erik van Oosten http://www.day-to-day-stuff.blogspot.com/
