On Thu, Mar 22, 2012, at 12:05, Igor Vaynberg wrote: > On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Pointbreak > <pointbreak+wicketst...@ml1.net> wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 22, 2012, at 11:42, Igor Vaynberg wrote: > >> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Pointbreak > >> <pointbreak+wicketst...@ml1.net> wrote: > >> > On Thu, Mar 22, 2012, at 10:56, Igor Vaynberg wrote: > >> >> 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 > >> > > >> > No that is not what happens with NoVersionMount: > >> > > >> > * If you click a link while on /foo that expands an info section why > >> > would it want to redirect you to /foo?1 ? It should just expand that > >> > info section, and you can remain on /foo. Doing a redirect defeats the > >> > purpose of being ajax twistie link. > > > > Not being an ajax twistie link still doesn't add the ?1 to the url. > > NoVersionMount will only add the id to callback urls. > > the twistie uses a Link which generates a callback url...
And the callback for that url directly renders a page? It's probably possible to do that in Wicket somehow, but it's it's not how I use it. If you really want to do that, don't use something like NoVersionMount for that page... There are a lot of other things you can't do (see the previous mails in this long thread) if you use Wicket default mounting strategy. Not having an id/version in the page urls is how I have always built my Wicket applications. And it always required some sort of hack to do that with Wicket, while I still think a large number of Wicket applications would benefit from it (and to be honest, imho many more existing Wicket applications would have a better user experience if they were build like this). But apparently it's just me and a few others that think like this. Thanks for your feedback. > >> > * Additionally, if you would explicitly program a redirect to the > >> > originating page in that callback, there will still be no ?x in the url. > >> > NoVersionMount drops it. The redirect will however construct a new > >> > version of the page. Depending on the page implementation, this may mean > >> > that the info section is not expanded on the final /foo page. > >> > NoVersionMount also makes sure that url's for callbacks do NOT drop the > >> > id in the url, so that the page is still stateful for ajax. > >> > > >> >> > 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
