Sounds interesting, especially as you want to provide a bunch of examples. So +1
Eelco
On 4/13/07, Jean-Baptiste Quenot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm going to add some examples for static pages in Wicket. That
is serving files (or more generally data streams) by reusing the
powerful Wick
I guess I was wrong in expecting a user agent header would always be
avaible. So WebClientInfo should accept null, and then in init() do
nothing.
Another thing I'm wondering is whether this is a quirk, or whether you
can expect a client that doesn't send a user-agent header to never
send it. Caus
I'm going to add some examples for static pages in Wicket. That
is serving files (or more generally data streams) by reusing the
powerful Wicket concepts like IResourceStream, IRequestTarget and
of course RequestCycle. By static pages I mean stateless pages
not using Components, in fact
this shouldve been the commit message and then everyone wouldve been happy.
thank you
-igor
On 4/13/07, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
http://cwiki.apache.org/WICKET/migrate-13.html#Migrate-1.3-RequestCycle%252CIRequestCycleFactory%252CSession%252CIPageMapandPageMapchanges
> > h
http://cwiki.apache.org/WICKET/migrate-13.html#Migrate-1.3-RequestCycle%252CIRequestCycleFactory%252CSession%252CIPageMapandPageMapchanges
> helps.
this says what, but not the why.
Ok, I thought it was obvious from just looking at the changes, but here we go.
* We got rid of getDefaultRequest
On 4/13/07, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I hope
http://cwiki.apache.org/WICKET/migrate-13.html#Migrate-1.3-RequestCycle%252CIRequestCycleFactory%252CSession%252CIPageMapandPageMapchanges
helps.
this says what, but not the why.
-igor
Eelco
On 4/13/07, Al Maw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It's rare, but sometimes you get real requests that don't have this
header. I could have sworn I opened a bug for this a while back.
Just found several in our logs. They seem to come from a 'watch dog' service.
Yes, IMHO this is broken - it causes
IJavascriptAnimation { CharSequence getJavascript(); }
AjaxRequestTarget.append(IJavascriptAnimation ani);
AjaxRequestTarget.prepend(IJavascriptAnimation ani);
something like that? that is pretty pluggable.
generalize it even more?
IJavascriptAnimation->IJavascriptProvider
the assumption is th
Can you please explain your changes,
The way request cycles were created was something that annoyed at
least some of us for a while. But one of these things that didn't get
fixed earlier because the annoyance level wasn't high enough I guess.
But this time Jonathan had a good use case. Don't ex
Martijn Dashorst wrote:
The following code is in WebClientInfo's constructor:
public WebClientInfo(WebRequestCycle requestCycle)
{
super();
HttpServletRequest httpServletRequest =
requestCycle.getWebRequest()
.getHttpServletRequest();
userAgent =
makes sense
-igor
On 4/13/07, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
i have seen bug fixes in other frameworks, for example i think rhino
javascript engine and also the common logging api still suffers from it?
that a frameworks shouldn't keep references to class objects (or
classloa
The following code is in WebClientInfo's constructor:
public WebClientInfo(WebRequestCycle requestCycle)
{
super();
HttpServletRequest httpServletRequest =
requestCycle.getWebRequest()
.getHttpServletRequest();
Jonathan, Eelco, Johan,
Can you please explain your changes, one checks in some changes,
the other one reverts part of it? Consider that I don't
understand what you are changing now, especially in the late
stages of the 1.3 release. It's worth an explanation for
unexpe
Martijn Dashorst a écrit :
On 4/13/07, Vincent Demay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What about a simple Behavior, I think behavior is easier to use for the
end user
class onRefreshAnimationBehavior extends AbstractBehavior{
onRendered(){
if(AjaxRequestTarget){
target.prependJa
* Johan Compagner:
> it is "fixed" by using the IComponentBorder interface for that.
So maybe we should just change the issue title to something like:
IComponentBorder custom borders around component
So that it's more obvious for someone reading the ChangeLog.
--
Jean-Baptiste Quenot
aka J
Martijn Dashorst wrote:
>
> On 4/13/07, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> And I also remember reading Nathan's blog with a reference to it... :)
>
> A google didn't give results for animate.js, however, he recently
> created his own scrolling effect [1]. I don't think his effort is
I'm sure we can. But the API won't be as straightforward. Bascially
everything you need for an animation is a chunk of javascript, so
prepend/appendJavascript can do the work. But you need some helper
classes to generate the javascript. However, is is more decoupled and
more difficult/uglier to us
Vincent Demay a écrit :
Frank Bille a écrit :
On 4/13/07, Jean-Baptiste Quenot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* Frank Bille:
> FYI, I have just made Dojo 1.3 being build in bamboo when
wicket-extensions
> 1.3 is build.
Just curious, why?
I saw that dojo depended on wicket/extensions 1.3 snaps
Frank Bille a écrit :
On 4/13/07, Jean-Baptiste Quenot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* Frank Bille:
> FYI, I have just made Dojo 1.3 being build in bamboo when
wicket-extensions
> 1.3 is build.
Just curious, why?
I saw that dojo depended on wicket/extensions 1.3 snapshot and thought
"hey,
wo
Hi,
i have seen bug fixes in other frameworks, for example i think rhino
javascript engine and also the common logging api still suffers from it?
that a frameworks shouldn't keep references to class objects (or
classloaders) because that are leaks..
How does OSGI and wicket work now for example
* Frank Bille:
> I saw that dojo depended on wicket/extensions 1.3 snapshot and
> thought "hey, wouldn't bamboo be a cool way to ensure that dojo
> is in sync with wicket?".
That's nice indeed. Do you use Dojo? ;-)
Cheers,
--
Jean-Baptiste Quenot
aka John Banana Qwerty
http://carald
On 4/13/07, Jean-Baptiste Quenot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* Frank Bille:
> FYI, I have just made Dojo 1.3 being build in bamboo when
wicket-extensions
> 1.3 is build.
Just curious, why?
I saw that dojo depended on wicket/extensions 1.3 snapshot and thought "hey,
wouldn't bamboo be a cool
* Frank Bille:
> FYI, I have just made Dojo 1.3 being build in bamboo when wicket-extensions
> 1.3 is build.
Just curious, why?
--
Jean-Baptiste Quenot
aka John Banana Qwerty
http://caraldi.com/jbq/
On 4/13/07, Vincent Demay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What about a simple Behavior, I think behavior is easier to use for the
end user
class onRefreshAnimationBehavior extends AbstractBehavior{
onRendered(){
if(AjaxRequestTarget){
target.prependJavascript(getFromEffect())
FYI, I have just made Dojo 1.3 being build in bamboo when wicket-extensions
1.3 is build.
Frank
Al Maw a écrit :
Martijn Dashorst wrote:
On 4/13/07, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm mainly thinking nice but do you have any concrete plans
(components, behavior) for it?
I think just a behavior (or class) with some examples. The philosophy
of the library is to not create 200
Martijn Dashorst wrote:
On 4/13/07, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm mainly thinking nice but do you have any concrete plans
(components, behavior) for it?
I think just a behavior (or class) with some examples. The philosophy
of the library is to not create 200 classes for every
Eelco Hillenius wrote:
On 4/12/07, Al Maw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This appears to have broken the world. Please can you at least do a
basic test against wicket-examples when you make changes like this?
Should be fixed now.
Great, thanks Eelco.
Al
On 4/13/07, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm mainly thinking nice but do you have any concrete plans
(components, behavior) for it?
I think just a behavior (or class) with some examples. The philosophy
of the library is to not create 200 classes for every effect known to
man, whic
On 4/13/07, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
And I also remember reading Nathan's blog with a reference to it... :)
A google didn't give results for animate.js, however, he recently
created his own scrolling effect [1]. I don't think his effort is
comparable to animate.js, though fun
On 4/13/07, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The animate.js should work out of the box without conflicts with dojo
> and prototype. It doesn't redefine core classes, making it orthogonal.
>
> The library is BSD licensed, and seems pretty much 'done'. The 24kb
> will be even smaller af
The animate.js should work out of the box without conflicts with dojo
and prototype. It doesn't redefine core classes, making it orthogonal.
The library is BSD licensed, and seems pretty much 'done'. The 24kb
will be even smaller after our compression.
What do you think?
I'm mainly thinking ni
I only know scriptaculous and jquery+interface and haven't looked at moo.
But 24Kb for animate is quite interesting!
Frank
On 4/13/07, Martijn Dashorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
All,
I have found a nice animation library that is not as big as
scriptaculous, in my opinion better than moo and
Martijn Dashorst a écrit :
All,
I have found a nice animation library that is not as big as
scriptaculous, in my opinion better than moo and that fits pretty good
into the wicket philosophy. I'm talking about animate.js [1].
It is not the most widely adopted javascript library, but it packs a
h
On 4/12/07, Al Maw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jon,
This appears to have broken the world. Please can you at least do a
basic test against wicket-examples when you make changes like this?
The unit tests for wicket-examples are currently failing with 50x
errors, I presume due to this.
Issue is r
All,
I have found a nice animation library that is not as big as
scriptaculous, in my opinion better than moo and that fits pretty good
into the wicket philosophy. I'm talking about animate.js [1].
It is not the most widely adopted javascript library, but it packs a
helluva functionality in abou
i already have some comments about that somewhere
where i said this can be done this way but getModel() isn't final.
where was it
ahh yes in initModel() (i don't do getModel anymore but test directly on
parent.model)
so +1 for final
johan
On 4/13/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrot
37 matches
Mail list logo
