But leaving IPageLink without any classes using it seems a bit weird to me. I
think IPageLink should be removed with PageLink and probably be moved to
wicket-security.
On Tuesday 19 January 2010 11:36:59 Jeroen Steenbeeke wrote:
> Which is what I suggested earlier in this discussion as well. So
Which is what I suggested earlier in this discussion as well. So long
as nobody touches the IPageLink interface then simply adapting
SecurePageLink to use IPageLink directly would work without any
significant break in SecurePageLink's API. That way there are no icky
constructors and no unnecessary
This discussion is relevant:
http://markmail.org/message/rwqrnvraoypwgbsj
In that discussion Maurice opted for removing PageLink altogether and
securing its functionality in SecurePageLink inside Wicket Security.
I guess that is a good option.
Martijn
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 9:04 AM, Igor Vayn
for nonbookmarkables you can use Link and simply override
equals/hashcode to create the pageidentity
-igor
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 11:39 PM, Emond Papegaaij
wrote:
> That's what I'm trying to say: it can't be accomplished by either
> BookmarkablePageLink or Link. Link does not have a getPageIden
That's what I'm trying to say: it can't be accomplished by either
BookmarkablePageLink or Link. Link does not have a getPageIdentity method and
BookmarkablePageLink only works for bookmarkable links (duh). So Link is never
an option because of the missing getPageIdentity method and
Bookmarkabl
http://grepcode.com/file/repo1.maven.org/maven2/org.apache.wicket/wicket/1.4.2/org/apache/wicket/markup/html/link/BookmarkablePageLink.java#BookmarkablePageLink.getPageClass%28%29
-igor
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 8:36 AM, Jeroen Steenbeeke
wrote:
> Because neither has a getPageClass() method?
>
> 2
Because neither has a getPageClass() method?
2010/1/18 Igor Vaynberg :
> well, if the functionality can be accomplished using either
> BookmarkablePageLink or Link, why do we need yet another way to do it?
>
> -igor
>
> On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 11:44 PM, Jeroen Steenbeeke
> wrote:
>> Guys, no need
well, if the functionality can be accomplished using either
BookmarkablePageLink or Link, why do we need yet another way to do it?
-igor
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 11:44 PM, Jeroen Steenbeeke
wrote:
> Guys, no need to keep explaining what's wrong with passing a Page in
> the constructor, we underst
I totally agree with Jeroen. The 3rd constructor is dangerous and should be
removed. The other two, however, are lazy and create the page in the onClick
(provided that the IPageLink interface is implemented correctly). Of course,
it is possible to copy PageLink and IPageLink to wicket-security,
Guys, no need to keep explaining what's wrong with passing a Page in
the constructor, we understand that!
Forget about that filthy 3rd constructor, I know it's wrong and I
never used it anyway. That wasn't what my question was about.
There are two more constructors:
PageLink(String, Class)
PageL
Agreed. This stuff isn't rocket science. Look at the code. If you want to
keep it around, write your own and use that. That's one of the nice things
about Wicket; it makes it very easy to do stuff like this
On Jan 15, 2010 3:05 AM, "Jeroen Steenbeeke"
wrote:
The obvious answer is to rewrite
Emond Papegaaij schrieb:
We just found that PageLink has been deprecated in wicket 1.4. Can someone
explain why?
http://www.codesmell.org/blog/2009/01/pagelink-considered-harmful/
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@
Jeremy,
That does not explain why the whole class is deprecated. Getting rid
of the constructor you linked to is a good thing, but why get rid of
the whole class when using an IPageLink is really just an indirection
to overriding onClick (with the added benefit of being able to use the
page identi
Gone because creating the page(s) during the rendering of another page is a
bad idea. It should be done in the onClick handler. See the comment in the
deprecation note (of the method, not just the class).
http://fisheye6.atlassian.com/browse/wicket/trunk/wicket/src/main/java/org/apache/wicket/ma
The obvious answer is to rewrite SecurePageLink to extend Link and
take an IPageLink as parameter. IPageLink is not deprecated so I would
hope that no trigger happy Wicket devs will be removing it. A quick
look at the SVN trunk shows it is still available whereas PageLink is
already gone.
Then aga
The javadoc says I should use Link or BookmarkablePageLink, which, as I
explained, are both not an option.
Emond
On Friday 15 January 2010 05:08:42 Igor Vaynberg wrote:
> what does the javadoc say?
>
> -igor
>
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 6:12 AM, Emond Papegaaij
>
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > We j
what does the javadoc say?
-igor
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 6:12 AM, Emond Papegaaij
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We just found that PageLink has been deprecated in wicket 1.4. Can someone
> explain why? I see no reason why PageLink should not be used. PageLink is the
> base for SecurePageLink (in wicket-secur
Hi,
We just found that PageLink has been deprecated in wicket 1.4. Can someone
explain why? I see no reason why PageLink should not be used. PageLink is the
base for SecurePageLink (in wicket-security), which uses getPageIdentity for
its security check. Using Link is not an option because it do
the two alternatives are mentioned in the javadoc.
-igor
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 11:35 AM, David R
Robison wrote:
> I noticed that the PageLink class is deprecated in 1.4. What should it be
> replaced with in my application code? David
>
> --
>
> David R Robison
> Open Roads Consulting, Inc.
> 10
I noticed that the PageLink class is deprecated in 1.4. What should it
be replaced with in my application code? David
--
David R Robison
Open Roads Consulting, Inc.
103 Watson Road, Chesapeake, VA 23320
phone: (757) 546-3401
e-mail: drrobi...@openroadsconsulting.com
web: http://openroadsconsult
20 matches
Mail list logo
