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", model).setEscapeModelStrings(false));
Assigning the text directly to the label (as in Label("raw",
"<h1>Foo</h1>")) will keep a reference to the String 'forever'. It's ok when
the HTML is short, but it doesn't seem to be your case.
--Cristiano
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 2:08 PM, Martijn Dashorst <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> add(new Label("raw", "<h1>Foo</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 <wicket:container/> element
> > on a panel with such raw dom content?
> >
> > **
> > Martin
> >
> > 2008/11/20 Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> 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 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 memory, mostly because there are
> very
> >>> large ListViews with up to 1000 entries, where each entry consumes
> about 2
> >>> KB.
> >>>
> >>> Our preliminary solution is to limit the size of those ListViews to a
> >>> maximum of 50 entries, but even in those cases the session size is
> still at
> >>> about 200 KB, which seems quite large to us.
> >>>
> >>> I know that there have already been some discussions about memory
> >>> consumption in Wicket due to the fact that the whole Page object of the
> last
> >>> visited page is stored in the session; but what I'd like to know is:
> Have
> >>> you experienced session sizes in a comparable magnitude, or are we
> doing
> >>> something wrong? Or is this something we have to live with when using
> >>> Wicket?
> >>>
> >>> We are using Wicket 1.3.5.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>>
> >>> Ralf.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>
> >>
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com
> Apache Wicket 1.3.4 is released
> Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
