Martin,
There's no xml dom generator. Instead, Wicket uses a simple stream. In the
rendering phase, you can execute getResponse().write(...) to write anything
to the browser.
--Cristiano
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 2:11 PM, Martin Makundi <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What is the out-of-the-box xml dom generator for wicket, if I wanted
> to use such tool for generating the html structure?
>
> **
> Martin
>
> 2008/11/20 Martijn Dashorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > 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]
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
