On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 8:52 AM, Martin Grigorov <mgrigo...@apache.org> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 5:42 PM, Igor Vaynberg <igor.vaynb...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 8:28 AM, Martin Grigorov <mgrigo...@apache.org> >> wrote: >>> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 5:20 PM, Igor Vaynberg <igor.vaynb...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 1:07 AM, Martin Grigorov <mgrigo...@apache.org> >>>> wrote: >>>>> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 12:55 AM, Igor Vaynberg <igor.vaynb...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> This is already the case, no need of a ticket for this. If there is no >>>>> ?5 then Wicket creates ?0 and shows it. >>>> >>>> this is not what i was talking about... >>>> >>>>> The "problem" Pointbreak actually mean is that userA may have opened >>>>> ?5 in his session, copy the url and give it to >>>>> userB, but userB also already have its own session and by chance he >>>>> also had reached ?5 and these two ?5s are >>>>> different because they may have different states for both users. >>>> >>>> not only are ?5 different, but they are entirely different pages. >>>> >>>> so user A goes to /foo, we redirect to /foo?0, they click around and >>>> end up on /foo?2 >>>> user B goes to /bar, we redirect to /bar?0, they click around and end >>>> up on /bar?7 >>>> >>>> now user A emails user B the /foo?2 link. when user B hits that link >>>> they end up going to a previous version of their *bar* page instead of >>>> some instance of /foo because we do not check the mount vs the page >>>> id, and whats worse we keep the mount in the url even though we are >>>> displaying a page that is not mounted. >>> >>> Ouch! >>> >>>> >>>> i guess this is why in 1.4 we dropped the mount from nonbookmarkable >>>> urls... >>> >>> I hope you don't mean that we have to redirect to wicket/page?0 from >>> the bookmarkable url that the user requested. >> >> no. we should redirect to wicket/page?x when the user navigates away >> from the mounted page. >> >> so i go to /bar which is BarPage and end up on /bar?0. click a link >> that does something to BarPage, so end up on /bar?1. click a link that >> takes me to FooPage, at this point since the page does not match the >> mount i should go to /wicket/page?3 > > Currently it works just as you described it. Or I don't understand you well. > A quickstart will make it more clear :-) > > My "ouch" was for something else - userA sends foo?5, but userB's ?5 > is for BarPage and current PageProvider will silently return BarPage's > version5. It wont be FooPage!
hrm. yes. in a cleanroom quickstart that is indeed how it works. in our prod app, for some reason, it just shows the other page on the old page's mount. i will have to dig into that in our code base. the quickstart does show what you have described above (showing the old version of the page instead of creating a new one), but it also does another interesting. when it redirects to the incorrect version of the other page it also uses wicket/bookmarkable url instead of the mount. so when i am on /bar?4 and change 4 to 2 which is a version of FooPage mounted on /foo i dont go to /foo?5 like i should, instead i go to /wicket/bookmarkable/FooPage?2 -igor > >> >> -igor >> >>> It'd be better if we check the type of the stored page against the >>> type of the page that is mounted at this "bookmarkable" url and throw >>> PageExpiredException if they don't match. >>> >>>> >>>> -igor >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> The confusing part here is "bookmarkable". Now imagine that there is >>>>> no ?pageId in the url. userA clicks several Ajax links to get to >>>>> version5 of that page and then copy/paste the url but userB will see >>>>> the initial state of the page, not version5 that userA actually meant. >>>>> So it seems only ?0 is actually "bookmarkable" for stateful pages. >>>>> Only in this case both users will see the same content (if there is no >>>>> special logic for user permissions involved). >>>>> >>>>> If userA wants to fully share his page with userB then he has to share >>>>> his session too, i.e. both ?5 and jessionid= has to be in the pasted >>>>> url. I don't recomment this! >>>>> >>>>> ?5 helps when the user refreshes the page in his current session. In >>>>> this case he will see the same content as before the refresh. In 1.4 >>>>> he'd see the initial state of the page and will loose any state that >>>>> is not persisted so far. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -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 >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Martin Grigorov >>>>> jWeekend >>>>> Training, Consulting, Development >>>>> http://jWeekend.com >>>>> >>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> 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 >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Martin Grigorov >>> jWeekend >>> Training, Consulting, Development >>> http://jWeekend.com >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> 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 >> > > > > -- > Martin Grigorov > jWeekend > Training, Consulting, Development > http://jWeekend.com > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
