[Wicket-user] long-named wicket:ids vs performance

2006-09-22 Thread Manuel Barzi
Sirs, Trying to get all WebPages and inner components correctly and univocally identified (wicket:id), I am using landing in a domain of long-named wicket:ids as, for instance, CaocAdminPage-checkg-1, to identify a CheckGroup... My question is: does long-named wicket:ids affect performance, or

Re: [Wicket-user] long-named wicket:ids vs performance

2006-09-22 Thread Juergen Donnerstag
There is no such inner mapping and I don't think it really matters performance wise. Juergen On 9/22/06, Manuel Barzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sirs, Trying to get all WebPages and inner components correctly and univocally identified (wicket:id), I am using landing in a domain of long-named

Re: [Wicket-user] long-named wicket:ids vs performance

2006-09-22 Thread Johan Compagner
I will try to answer it then ;)i don't think it will affect performance that much but it will increase memory consumption a bitand then on both sides with that i mean the static heap (because your html size is bigger in the markup cache) and the garbage created because the wicket id's can be used

Re: [Wicket-user] long-named wicket:ids vs performance

2006-09-22 Thread Manuel Barzi
Glad to learn it ;! Thanks, Johan. I will try to answer it then ;) i don't think it will affect performance that much but it will increase memory consumption a bit and then on both sides with that i mean the static heap (because your html size is bigger in the markup cache) and the garbage

Re: [Wicket-user] long-named wicket:ids vs performance

2006-09-22 Thread Igor Vaynberg
you do know that the ids have to be unique only within the same parent right?this is perfectly legalMyPage() { add(new CheckGroup(group); WebMarkupContainer c=new WebMarkupContainer(container); container.add(new CheckGroup(group);-IgorOn 9/22/06, Manuel Barzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Sirs,Trying

Re: [Wicket-user] long-named wicket:ids vs performance

2006-09-22 Thread Manuel Barzi
you do know that the ids have to be unique only within the same parent right? this is perfectly legal MyPage() { add(new CheckGroup(group); WebMarkupContainer c=new WebMarkupContainer(container); container.add(new CheckGroup(group); -Igor Already learnt-by-example, yes. Thank you.