indeed. we should check that the page pointed to by the id maps back to the mount, and create a new instance based on the mount if it doesnt. jira please.
-igor On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Pointbreak <pointbreak+wicketst...@ml1.net> wrote: > It's a problem when users bookmark it. Because ...?5 this session is an > entirely other page as ...?5 in another session tomorrow. > > On Mon, Mar 19, 2012, at 11:53, Girts Ziemelis wrote: >> >> >> On 2012-03-19 02:46, Paolo wrote: >> > I support you! I implemented class NoVersionMount thanks to pointbreak >> > in my MainApplication. And It will be my template for future app. But >> > to do it, I needed to understood the problem, check on google, read a >> > lot of pages, without found a solution, so post the question here, and >> > after 3 post, got a right reply for me. Why an wicket user have to do >> > all this???? Why not, wicket use the NoVersionMount as default Mount? >> > Like in wicket 1.4. And implement an VersionMount as an alternative >> > for developer? >> I actually like this change so far. I can finally tell, that my page is >> stetefull just by looking at the link and ask myself question - if I >> really care so much about the clean link for this page, may be it should >> be stateless in a first place? >> >> And why is ?0 such a big problem? It does not cause problems sending >> links. >> Is there any real proof of google indexing problems so far? >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org >> >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
