On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Pointbreak <pointbreak+wicketst...@ml1.net> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 22, 2012, at 09:49, Igor Vaynberg wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 8:54 AM, Pointbreak >> <pointbreak+wicketst...@ml1.net> wrote: >> > On Thu, Mar 22, 2012, at 08:23, Igor Vaynberg wrote: >> >> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 7:59 AM, Pointbreak >> >> <pointbreak+wicketst...@ml1.net> wrote: >> >> > On Sun, Mar 18, 2012, at 20:00, Igor Vaynberg wrote: >> >> >> i think there is some confusion here. wicket 1.4 had page ids. it also >> >> >> had page versions. in 1.5 we simply merged page id and page version >> >> >> into the same variable - page id. this made things much simpler and >> >> >> also allowed some usecases that were not possible when the two were >> >> >> separate. >> >> >> >> >> >> you dont have to go very far to come up with an example where page id >> >> >> is >> >> >> useful. >> >> >> >> >> >> 1. suppose you have a page with panel A that has a link >> >> >> 2. user hits a link on the page that swaps panel A for panel B >> >> >> 3. user presses the back button >> >> >> 4. user clicks the link on panel A >> >> >> >> >> >> now if you turn off page id and therefore page versioning it goes like >> >> >> this >> >> >> 1. wicket creates page and assigns it id 1 >> >> >> 2. page id 1 now has panel B instead of panel A >> >> >> 3. page with id 1 is rerendered >> >> >> 4. wicket loads page with id 1. user gets an error because it cannot >> >> >> find the link component the user clicked since the page has panel B >> >> >> instead of panel A >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > This is imho not what happens with NoVersionMount. What happens is: >> >> > >> >> > 1. wicket creates page and assigns it id 1 >> >> > 2. page id 1 now has panel B instead of panel A >> >> > 3. wicket creates new page and assigns it id 2; depending on how the >> >> > page keeps state either a page with panel A and link, or a page with >> >> > Panel B is created. >> >> > >> >> > Hence, there is nothing broken in this scenario. >> >> >> >> we were talking about something else here. the NoVersionMount has the >> >> problem of losing ajax state when the user refreshes the page. >> >> >> > >> > I believe the OP's question was for use-cases were Wickets default >> > behaviour would be preferred over using a strategy like NoVersionMount. >> > But if I understood that incorrectly, it's now my question ;-). >> > Imho >> > the natural behaviour a user expects for a page-refresh is a fresh >> > up-to-date version of the page. This is exactly what NoVersionMount does >> > as it forces a newly constructed page for a refresh. For OP's (Chris >> > Colman's) shopping card example this seems perfectly reasonable >> > behaviour. >> >> it is undesirable in applications that perform navigation using ajax >> panel swapping. in this case a page-refresh will essentially take you >> back to the homepage. > > Fair enough > >> > I have never had to build a website were it was a problem when the ajax >> > state was lost on page refresh. >> >> but you also have not built every wicket application... > > Obviously... to be honest, for your use case (one page ajax application > that performs navigation by swapping page components) I have always > chosen other frameworks, that are (imho) better suited for these > usecases. > >> > When wicket shows older versions of a >> > page (e.g. due to back button, bookmarking older versions, etc.), you >> > have to be really careful with how a page version and a model interact >> > to not run into trouble. You also loose bookmarkability of such pages >> > (in the web-browser sense, not in the wicket-sense). >> >> you also lose it if the user bookmarks the page after they click >> something on a bookmarkable page... so stripping the version off >> initial entry is not fixing the problem entirely. > > I don't see this. They always get an up-to-date version of the page they > bookmarked, as it is always freshly constructed.
suppose i go to /foo i think click some twistie link that expands some info section, and in process redirects me to /foo?1 at this point i think this page is useful and i bookmark it so i still have the version number in my bookmark. in fact, the only way i dont have a version number is if i bookmark without clicking anything on the page. i dont know how often that happens compared to bookmarking after at least one click on something in the page -igor > Ok, I can see the usecase for this page-id/version functionality. > However, I still think it would be useful if Wicket also catered for the > other usecase, where page navigation is handled by just having multiple > pages. Is there a serious flaw in the NoVersionMount strategy for these > usecases, and if not, wouldn't something like that be a valuable > contribution to Wicket? (In which case I think it should not be turned > on by a MountMapper implementation, but by a page property). > > I have always considered Wicket's main strength the flexibility to have > ajax-like functionality in a page based component framework. It's a > really nice thing to be able to have support for good looking and > bookmarkable url's in such applications. And it also makes page state > management easier for these pages (i.e. when a LDM and the component > hierarchy on a page have a relation). > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
