e a serious deficiency in Wicket's
> architecture...
>
>
>
>
> From: Francois Meillet
> To: users@wicket.apache.org
> Date: 05/06/2014 08:48 AM
> Subject:Re: Application Scope
>
>
>
> sessions are serialised
>
> François Meillet
will Wicket
try to serialize a map we put into the session?
From: Martin Grigorov
To: "users@wicket.apache.org"
Date: 05/06/2014 08:06 AM
Subject:Re: Application Scope
Please don't change the thread subject for all your answers. This
confuses
the threading su
t;
>
>
> From: Francois Meillet
> To: users@wicket.apache.org
> Date: 05/06/2014 08:48 AM
> Subject:Re: Application Scope
>
>
>
> sessions are serialised
>
> François Meillet
> Formation Wicket - Développement Wicket
>
>
>
>
>
>
I assume that means we can't store non-serializable objects in the
session? This is sounding like a serious deficiency in Wicket's
architecture...
From: Francois Meillet
To: users@wicket.apache.org
Date: 05/06/2014 08:48 AM
Subject: Re: Application Scope
se
tore many
potentially many (similar) pieces of data (read FutureTask) for the same
page in a multi-user environment: That is, one for each user who's running
the background task thread.
This would be much easier if I could store something non-serializeable in
session scope. Storing things in applic
> try to serialize a map we put into the session?
>
>
>
>
> From: Martin Grigorov
> To: "users@wicket.apache.org"
> Date: 05/06/2014 08:06 AM
> Subject:Re: Application Scope
>
>
>
> Please don't change the thread subject
AM
Subject: Re: Application Scope
Please don't change the thread subject for all your answers. This confuses
the threading support in some mail clients.
I meant *My*Application, i.e. *Your*Application.
Add this method and map/associate all tasks that your run to some id/key.
Serial
ect:Re: Application Scope
Please don't change the thread subject for all your answers. This confuses
the threading support in some mail clients.
I meant *My*Application, i.e. *Your*Application.
Add this method and map/associate all tasks that your run to some id/key.
Serialize the
You can use MyApp.get().setMetaData() and MyApp.get().getMetaData()
François Meillet
Formation Wicket - Développement Wicket
Le 6 mai 2014 à 14:50, Richard W. Adams a écrit :
> Are you referring to org.apache.wicket.Application? I don't see a
> getTasksMap() method there. We use Wicket 1
Please don't change the thread subject for all your answers. This confuses
the threading support in some mail clients.
I meant *My*Application, i.e. *Your*Application.
Add this method and map/associate all tasks that your run to some id/key.
Serialize the key and later get a reference to the Futur
Are you referring to org.apache.wicket.Application? I don't see a
getTasksMap() method there. We use Wicket 1.4.17 & our company will not
allow us to upgrade to newer versions). If getTasksMap() is unavailable in
1.4.17, could Application.getSharedResources() be used in a similar way?
From:
On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 2:39 PM, nino martinez wael
wrote:
> you can mock statict classes with power mock , but i'vé come to the
> konklusion that it is a code smell going that way ioc are much better.
Right, I didn't say it was impossible. I said it would be more
difficult. Dependency injectio
you can mock statict classes with power mock , but i'vé come to the
konklusion that it is a code smell going that way ioc are much better.
-from my htc
2009/5/15, James Carman :
> On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 12:18 PM, alf.redo
> wrote:
>>
>> Thank you to all for your precious suggestions.
>>
>> My q
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 12:18 PM, alf.redo
wrote:
>
> Thank you to all for your precious suggestions.
>
> My question is not for a real need.
> Supposing to discard the injection "strategy", I would like to know if the
> cache of an object into my WebApplication class during application startup
>
n (and not store it in
WebApplication). Can be some problems about "thread-safety" or other issue
in one case rather than the other?
I'm sorry if this seems to be a stupid question...
alf
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Application-scope-vs-Singleton-tp23
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 11:26 AM, Jeremy Thomerson
wrote:
> Use injection. The difference is that there is no way to override the
> implementation of the static accessor / singleton for testing
> functionality. If you instead use an IoC container (Spring / Guice)
> and injection, you are not sta
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/Application-scope-vs-Singleton-tp23559402p23562038.html
> Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
> -
> To un
:
http://www.nabble.com/Application-scope-vs-Singleton-tp23559402p23562038.html
Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands
Alfredo Aleandri wrote:
> I have a doubt about application-scoped objects.
> What's the pro and cons of setting an object instance into my
> WebApplication class or define that class as singleton (using a static
> method to access it) ?
Pro: Singletons are easy to use
Contra: They make Unit tests
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 9:01 AM, Alfredo Aleandri
wrote:
> Hi,
> I have a doubt about application-scoped objects.
What is your doubt?
> What's the pro and cons of setting an object instance into my WebApplication
> class or define that class as singleton (using a static method to access it)
> ?
Hi,
I have a doubt about application-scoped objects.
What's the pro and cons of setting an object instance into my
WebApplication class or define that class as singleton (using a static
method to access it) ?
Thank you
alf
y doubt was really on the
correctness of overriding the get() method of WebApplication
to enable the use of application scope objects.
Thanks for the advice and cheers,
Marvan
James Perry wrote:
Firstly I hope you are enjoying building your first Wicket web app.
Is this application scope obje
Firstly I hope you are enjoying building your first Wicket web app.
Is this application scope object immutable? What is the data structure?
IMHO, if it's immutable then it's OK to use composition within your
WebApplication by adding this object as a field within WebApplication.
I would
which uses them
> outside the user session and I would like to avoid temporarily persisting
> them into a database.
>
> I'm looking at using application scope objects but I'm not sure how to do
> it
> best
> in Wicket.
>
> I guess I should override the get()
ooking at using application scope objects but I'm not sure how to do it
best
in Wicket.
I guess I should override the get() method of WebApplication
mimicking the pattern used for custom Session objects.
public class WicketApplication extends MyWebApplication
{
private Object application
this is already how 1.3 works. only the current page is stored in
session, older pages are swapped off to disk.
-igor
On 10/19/07, John Patterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> HI,
>
> Is there anyway to have stateless pages that live in the application
> scope so I can use A
HI,
Is there anyway to have stateless pages that live in the application
scope so I can use AJAX behaviours and other listeners? Failing
that, can I turn off storing all pages except for the current active
page?
Cheers,
John
27 matches
Mail list logo
