I will try it when I get to work. Thanks a bunch!
On Apr 17, 2009 6:37 AM, "Peter Gardfjäll" <[email protected]>
wrote:
Sure,
here goes. I have added both the java and the js file to the same Java
package:
WicketAjaxJsPatch.java
==================
/**
* {...@link IBehavior} that should be added to {...@link Page}s that need to
prevent
* the page load performance penalty incurred when wicket-ajax.js traverses
all
* <a> tags in the page markup.
*
* <p/>
* For background information, see <a
href="
http://www.nabble.com/wicket-ajax-and-IE-performance-problems-for-pages-with-many-links-td23078336.html
"
* >this mailing list thread</a>
* <p/>
* This behavior simply makes sure that our patch gets applied to
wicket-ajax.js
* (by forcing wicket-ajax.js to be added to the page head prior to
* wicket-ajax-patch.js).
*
*/
public class WicketAjaxJsPatch extends AbstractDefaultAjaxBehavior {
@Override
public void renderHead(IHeaderResponse response) {
super.renderHead(response);
response.renderJavascriptReference(new ResourceReference(
WicketAjaxJsPatch.class, "wicket-ajax-patch.js"));
}
@Override
protected void respond(AjaxRequestTarget target) {
// Does nothing. The fact that we are extending
// AbstractDefaultAjaxBehavior means that we will pull in
// wicket-event.js and wicket-ajax.js. The job of this behavior is to
// make sure that our wicket-ajax-patch.js script gets added to the
page
// head after those scripts.
}
}
wicket-ajax-patch.js
===============
/**
* Overrides the attachFocusEvent function registered by wicket-ajax.js.
* The original version traverses all anchor and button tags on the page
* which incurs a major performance penalty on pages with many links.
* This version skips these elements in the scanning.
*/
if (typeof(Wicket) != "undefined") { if (typeof(Wicket.Focus) !=
"undefined") { // Deregister ...
Attaching the behavior
=================
What I do then is to add the WicketAjaxJsPatch to the page by doing.
page.add(new WicketAjaxJsPatch());
It seems to be doing its job for me. Please tell me if it doesn't work.
cheers, Peter
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 12:15 PM, James Carman
<[email protected]> wrote: > Did that code actually work for you?
I tried adding this js...
