Hi,
There is a simple trick you can use. It's a bit of a hack maybe, but it
works:
add(new Link("cancelButton")
{
public void onClick()
{
// put search page in front of the queue again
searchCDPage.getPageMa
Btw, if you want to track what happens to your models, set the
wicket.model logging category to DEBUG.
Eelco
Eelco Hillenius wrote:
There is only one rule for attachement: whenever a model object is
needed, and the model is /not/ attached yet (cq was detached), it is
attached.
Everthing happen
There is only one rule for attachement: whenever a model object is
needed, and the model is /not/ attached yet (cq was detached), it is
attached.
Everthing happens in AbstractDetachableModel. It has a boolean:
/**
* Transient flag to prevent multiple detach/attach scenario. We need to
Hi
I know it's been discussed here already, but still I coudln't find a
solution.
The problem is that I've a detail page from which I want to have link to
master page.
The link is done like this:
add (new PageLink ("back", new IPageLink () {
public Page getPage () {
onAttach is called whenever the object is needed
so if it is called then somehow it is asked for.
johan
Jonathan Carlson wrote:
I'm working from CVS HEAD a couple of weeks back. I am going to upgrade
to CVS HEAD today and I'll get back to you.
Thanks!
Jonathan
I'm working from CVS HEAD a couple of weeks back. I am going to upgrade
to CVS HEAD today and I'll get back to you.
Thanks!
Jonathan
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-05-06 10:42:28 AM >>>
Are you working on CVS HEAD? I know Eelco, Johan and I has been busy
with discussing and changing the request h
Are you working on CVS HEAD? I know Eelco, Johan and I has been busy
with discussing and changing the request handling and render process. I
don't know whether this is the cause for your question.
Do you reference somewhere in your construction code a getObject() or
getModelObject() method?
Ma
I need a quick verification.
Last night I noticed that onAttach was being called on my model when my
page was being created rather than just before my page was rendered.
Is that the standard behavior, or did I just mess something up?
Thanks,
- Jonathan
_
On second thought... Implementing it as a field would mean an API change
(as wantsXXX does not comply with the JavaBeans patter). That's not a
good idea just before 1.0. I think the best thing to do here is that we
should have a serious code review on API consistency for 1.1. I don't
expect we'
Euhm. I can't think of a good reason for that except that you'll have
one less field to serialize when clustering. And that it is simpeler as
there is only the read method, no write method and field.
Anyway, Jonathan decided on this one, but I think there is no setter as
initially we thought th
10 matches
Mail list logo
