Hi Tobias,
thanks, I wasn't aware of TextTemplateResourceReference.
IMHO it doesn't uses a modus operandi we would want to endorse, i.e. it
doesn't detach its model and I don't see a good way to do that anyway.
But it shows the difficulty in posing any rules for RR: If the
resourceReference is registered in the application, it doesn't need to
be serializable. Only if it is kept in the component tree, it has to be
serializable.
The same holds for IResources.
Have fun
Sven
Am 15.06.2018 um 06:03 schrieb Tobias Soloschenko:
Hi,
so you suggest that we may should use only serializable objects as arguments?
The TextTemplateResourceReference is also using a Model.
So maybe we should refactor all to not use models at all?
https://ci.apache.org/projects/wicket/apidocs/8.x/org/apache/wicket/request/resource/ResourceReference.html
In my opinion there should be a unified way for all RR.
kind regards
Tobias
Am 14.06.2018 um 19:49 schrieb Sven Meier <s...@meiers.net>:
Hi,
a model doesn't make too much sense here, because references don't get detached.
I find the usage of a model here and in FileSystemResource a little misleading:
Yes, the LDM will drop the reference once it is serialized (because of its
transient reference),
but it is 'detached' explicitly in #respond() only, which doesn't actually
happen until the resource is fetched in a different request.
Have fun
Sven
Am 14.06.2018 um 18:25 schrieb Tobias Soloschenko:
+1 - at this time I was not aware of what all has to be serializable. So yep I
would suggest to use the Model at this place, too.
kind regards
Tobias
Am 14.06.2018 um 07:50 schrieb Martin Grigorov <mgrigo...@apache.org>:
With WICKET-6504 we improved FileSystemResource to use
LoadableDetachableModel<Path> instead of just path.
Maybe the same should be done for the ResourceReference too ?
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 4:24 AM Maxim Solodovnik <solomax...@gmail.com>
wrote:
You can have String path (instead of Path path)
And it will works as expected :)
WBR, Maxim
(from mobile, sorry for the typos)
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018, 04:23 sorinev <sori...@gmail.com> wrote:
Perfect, that worked. What's the side effect of this vs the other way, if
any?
--
Sent from:
http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/Users-forum-f1842947.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
