Hi Bertrand, Did you verify that ? If yes and you have a quickstart then create a ticket. There are no tickets from this discussion so far.
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 6:31 PM, Bertrand Guay-Paquet <ber...@step.polymtl.ca> wrote: > Hi, > > Is there a JIRA issue tracking this "render wrong page based on page > version" problem? I'm very interested in this issue since sharing links to > stateful pages containing a page version is essentially broken. > > Regards, > Bertrand > > > On 20/03/2012 12:45 PM, Igor Vaynberg wrote: >> >> 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 >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
