Yes, each of the list items contains 10 child components, and all models
are detached correctly. So the 2 KB per list item seem to be normal.
We have not finally identified the large sessions as the root cause of
the server crashes, but the 2 MB sessions caught our eyes immediately.
One of our
Thanks for the advice. Unfortunately we cannot do this here, because the
ListViews contain Link components for user interaction.
Actually I was wondering why it is necessary to keep all of the list
items in the session when the next time the page is rendered the list
items are regenerated
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 9:18 AM, Ralf Siemon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for the advice. Unfortunately we cannot do this here, because the
ListViews contain Link components for user interaction.
you can generate a link yourself easily, let your custom listview
implement ILinkListener and
Martin,
There's no xml dom generator. Instead, Wicket uses a simple stream. In the
rendering phase, you can execute getResponse().write(...) to write anything
to the browser.
--Cristiano
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 2:11 PM, Martin Makundi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is the out-of-the-box xml
Would it help using Bookmarkable links?
**
Martin
2008/11/21 Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 9:18 AM, Ralf Siemon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for the advice. Unfortunately we cannot do this here, because the
ListViews contain Link components for user interaction.
yes, if you only use bookmarkable links you can remove items after they render.
but like i said, component frameworks are not really made to handle
modelling repeaters with 10K rows. each component has overhead, so
when you are trying to render 10K*~10 components per row you end up
with 100K
Hi,
we have recently launched our new Wicket-based website, and now we are
experiencing that the memory consumption of the website is very high, so
that it crashes the site regularly.
When profiling the application server, we found out that there are HTTP
sessions that consume up to 2 MB of
200kb per session sounds very reasonable.
Then you should be able to handle quite a lot of concurrent sessions.
What kind of hardware do you use?
On 11/20/08, Ralf Siemon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
we have recently launched our new Wicket-based website, and now we are
experiencing that
That was only after he cut the listview sizes - problem is that his sessions
are 2MB now. Still should support quite a few (1000 = 2GB), but there is
probably a memory issue to address there.
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 9:20 AM, Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
200kb per session sounds very
Your ListView instances must be holding on to domain objects. You should
use LoadableDetachableModels so that the ListView doesn't hold on to
references to objects.
The most common memory issue is always that your components are holding on
to objects directly or using Model, which holds the
200kb is quite a lot for page with listview with 50 entries (unless
there's lot of other components). It's more likely that you don't
detach something properly.
Still, what are you hardware specs and number of concurrent users?
-Matej
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 4:15 PM, Ralf Siemon [EMAIL
No if you really render 1000 rows (list items) in a list view ands
those listitems have textfields or labels again then yes it could
expand quite a lot
But 1000 listems with maybe 4,5 components in each listitem then that
will be 5000 components on just that page that will cost memory
On
if you are planning on displaying 1000 rows per page, which is quiet
uncommon for webapps, you should produce output as raw html instead of
using listview and adding components inside.
-igor
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 7:15 AM, Ralf Siemon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
we have recently launched
BTW, is it easy to control what wicket stores in session? May be by patching
wicket code?
P.S. Sorry if the question is lame, I have just started studying wicket and
I want to decide whether to use it in production.
When profiling the application server, we found out that there are HTTP
What is the easiest way of embedding raw html (yes, it could/should
use some xml dom which is included with wicket)?
Is it possible, for example, to replace a wicket:container/ element
on a panel with such raw dom content?
**
Martin
2008/11/20 Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
if you are
add(new Label(raw, h1Foo/h1).setEscapeModelStrings(false));
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 5:00 PM, Martin Makundi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is the easiest way of embedding raw html (yes, it could/should
use some xml dom which is included with wicket)?
Is it possible, for example, to replace a
What is the out-of-the-box xml dom generator for wicket, if I wanted
to use such tool for generating the html structure?
**
Martin
2008/11/20 Martijn Dashorst [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
add(new Label(raw, h1Foo/h1).setEscapeModelStrings(false));
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 5:00 PM, Martin Makundi
[EMAIL
Ralf,
If you want to discard the generated text after rendering, you may use a
detachable model, like LoadableDetachableModel:
IModel model = new LoadableDetachableModel() {
public Object load() {
return generateMyHTML();
}
}
add(new Label(raw,
18 matches
Mail list logo
