Im actually not sure why it was using getPage() on listview. I went throught the code and changed instances of listview to ipageablecomponent, I assumed whomever called listview.getPage() had a good reason for it.
-Igor > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Jonathan Locke > Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 6:12 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Wicket-user] Sigin Example > > > btw, why doesn't PageableListViewNavigationLink just use its own page? > the navigation and the navigated object should never be on > different pages, right? > > Igor Vaynberg wrote: > > >I can see your point. My thinking has always been that any abstract > >class has an implicit interface which is the sum of its > public methods, > >and that there really is no difference between evolving > public methods > >in an abstract class and evolving an interface and its single > >implementation. This is of course different when an interface is > >intended as a joint point between two systems or when > alternate implementations are expected. > > > >I am far more interested in finding a good solution for the > >IPageableComponent than discussing philosophies. > > > >The need for this arose when I was writing DataView. I > wanted to reuse > >navigation components that worked with listview, such as > >PageableListViewNavigation, PageableListViewNavigationLink, etc. In > >their current state they were tightly coupled to listview, > so I had to > >decouple them, thus the IPageableComponent interface. Inside > it it has > >all the methods that those navigation components need to > manipulate the > >listview, so now instead of getting the listview directly > they get an > >instance of IPageableComponent and do the manipulation through that. > > > >Now all my dataview had to do is implement IPageableComponent and it > >could magically be navigated by the navigation components. > > > >Pretty clean and simple, however, the navigation components expect > >IPageableComponent to also be a component. For example, > >PageableListViewNavigationLink needs access to the page that the > >pageable component is on. Because of this I had to add a > Page getPage() > >implemented by Component to the interface. This is the part > that I am > >trying to find a cleaner solution for, and this is why I suggested > >Icomponent. If we had Icomponent IPageableComponent could > extend that > >and also be used as a regular component. > > > >An alternate solution I can see is to get rid of > IPageableComponent and > >use a PageableAdapter class with a getComponent() method inside. So > >instead of PageableListViewLink(...., dataview) it would be > >PageableListViewLink(...., new PageableAdapter(dataview)). This > >solution seems a bit unnatural to me because it goes around > the inheritance hirarchy. > > > >What are your thoughts? > > > >Thanks, > >Igor > > > > > > > > > >>-----Original Message----- > >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Jonathan > >>Locke > >>Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 3:41 PM > >>To: [email protected] > >>Subject: Re: [Wicket-user] Sigin Example > >> > >> > >>Igor Vaynberg wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>>Jonathan, > >>> > >>>Could you please elaborate on why interfaces are "fragile". > >>> > >>> > >>It doesn't > >> > >> > >>>click for me. How is it more fragile to have an interface > >>> > >>> > >>and a single > >> > >> > >>>implementation as opposed to a base class with no interface? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>an interface is fragile because it is an inflexible, fixed > contract. > >>it really is /set in stone/ for a large project with a long > lifespan > >>(which we all hope wicket will be). > >>if you think about it, on a very widely used framework you > really can > >>never ever change an interface. ever. i don't know about > you... but > >>i'm not smart enough to get an interface with more than a couple of > >>methods right the first time and for all time. i usually discover > >>weeks or months later (or days or hours... > >>DOH!) that i > >>forgot something. that's the fragility i'm talking about. > >> > >>i believe that one shouldn't generally define interfaces for things > >>that have contracts that are likely to evolve. > >>especially if they are likely to evolve significantly > and/or rapidly. > >>if you have more than a few methods, the odds seem to increase > >>exponentially with each added method that you'll eventually > have that > >>DOH! moment where you realize that you didn't really fully > understand > >>the contract you long ago (or not so long ago) thought was so > >>clever... > >> > >>an abstract base class has all the abstractness of an > interface, but > >>allows flexible default implementation that is not fixed > for all time. > >>you can think of it very loosely as a mixture between a > class and an > >>interface if you like. > >>non-abstract methods can at least be added even if the existing > >>abstract methods can't be changed without breaking the world. > >>interestingly, you can also theoretically /remove/ the > abstractness of > >>abstract methods (loosening the > >>contract) without breaking subclasses by concretizing > methods later. > >>in any case, for things that need the ability to evolve in the way > >>that Component has (take a look at the revision history, we're on > >>version > >>#164 of that file... and I don't think that includes 100+ > versions of > >>that code from my original codebase), an interface doesn't > make sense > >>unless there's some other urgent, overriding need for it. > >> > >>in general, there can be other arguments that override the > >>disadvantage of interface inflexibility, such as a requirement to > >>allow alternate implementations not based on the same root > >>functionality, enabling mix-in usage or some other usage > driven need > >>like making something Remote. none of these seemed or seem like > >>important factors in wicket. > >> > >> > >> > >>>As far as mixins go, I only ran into one situation so far. The > >>>IPageableComponent interface has to have getPage() method > >>> > >>> > >>which really > >> > >> > >>>has nothing to do with the implementation being pageable, > >>> > >>> > >>but with the > >> > >> > >>>fact that it is a component. Everything that uses > IPageableComponent > >>>expects a component with pageable behaviour, not just a pageable > >>>something. Im not screaming interfaces for everything, but > >>> > >>> > >>in this case it would be nice. > >> > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>i don't know enough about this case to comment. but i > highly suspect > >>that there is some answer that doesn't involve making Component or > >>Page an interface. > >> > >> > >> > >>>Thanks, > >>>Igor > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>-----Original Message----- > >>>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > >>>> > >>>> > >>Of Jonathan > >> > >> > >>>>Locke > >>>>Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 2:29 PM > >>>>To: [email protected] > >>>>Subject: Re: [Wicket-user] Sigin Example > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>i think you're awfully, awfully full of yourself (in fact, > >>>> > >>>> > >>you sound > >> > >> > >>>>like me about 10 years ago... ;-)). have you even considered the > >>>>possibility that it might be /you/ that doesn't get it? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>from my perspective: > >>> > >>> > >>>> loose coupled interfaces == bell bottom jeans > >>>> > >>>>people think that they're the solution to everything right now. > >>>>and just like bell bottom jeans, some people really did > >>>> > >>>> > >>look good in > >> > >> > >>>>them. they were cool. but what were we thinking!? > >>>>does /everyone/ look good in bell bottom jeans? hardly. > >>>>just watch "that 70's show" sometime... the neighbor guy > with the > >>>>curly hair. > >>>>he's an example of a guy that definitely doesn't need loose > >>>> > >>>> > >>coupling. > >> > >> > >>>>when you've been doing this as long as i have, you start > to notice > >>>>patterns in the fads that sweep through the industry. > >>>>and you eventually start to ignore the hype where it > >>>> > >>>> > >>doesn't make any > >> > >> > >>>>sense. > >>>>i could see this whole "bind-everything-with-xml" fad > several years > >>>>ago coming from a mile away. and now what? people are > >>>> > >>>> > >>attracted to > >> > >> > >>>>wicket because it didn't follow that fad. i think you're simply > >>>>missing the forest for the trees. loose coupled > interfaces are the > >>>>right design pattern for a whole host of problems. but the > >>>> > >>>> > >>design for > >> > >> > >>>>a web ui framework is not one of them. this was one of > the things > >>>>that turned me off when i looked at tapestry. all these gigantic > >>>>interfaces? > >>>>why? yuck. > >>>> > >>>>don't get me wrong... please, keep thinking. we all have > >>>> > >>>> > >>to learn by > >> > >> > >>>>experience. i promise i won't stop you from trying to > loose couple > >>>>every object in /your/ project with gigantic fragile > >>>> > >>>> > >>interfaces that > >> > >> > >>>>serve no practical purpose. but please don't try to do it > >>>> > >>>> > >>to wicket. > >> > >> > >>>>interfaces have been used judiciously in wicket. i'm not > >>>> > >>>> > >>saying it's > >> > >> > >>>>perfect. > >>>>i'm not even saying we shouldn't add an interface here or > >>>> > >>>> > >>there. we > >> > >> > >>>>just have yet to hear an even remotely reasonable argument > >>>> > >>>> > >>that wicket > >> > >> > >>>>components should be mixins. and that's why they aren't. > >>>> > >>>>David Liebeherr wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>Uh ohh, i started reading the dicussion about interfaces > in wicket. > >>>>>I think Eleco and Jonathan might be wrong in some ways. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>One /very/ important reason not to use interfaces in this > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>case is that: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>>interfaces are hard to evolve. Interfaces have to be > pretty darn > >>>>>>stable before even considering throwing them out in the > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>public, as > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>>there is no way (not without a tough fight at least) you > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>can alter > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>>it later on - even adding a new method will break all clients. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>He sais that interfaces have to be more stable than an > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>object without > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>interface. > >>>>>But he misses a very important fact: > >>>>>Assume you have "String str = new String()" String is a concrete > >>>>>class. but: String in this context is _ALSO_ an interface! > >>>>>Every reference is an interface no mather if it's a > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>concrete class or > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>an interface/abstract class! > >>>>>And i think it should be not that hard to design proper > interfaces! > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>jonathan: interfaces should always be a set of methods that you > >>>>>>cannot ever imagine extending > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>"interface B extends A" ? interface inheritance is fun, > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>isn't it? :-) > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>>[22:43] jonathan: my ideal number of methods in an > interface is 1 > >>>>>>[22:43] jonathan: ;-) [22:44] jonathan: 2 is okay in some cases > >>>>>>[22:44] jonathan: 3 often should be re-thought > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>i don't see what's the sens of defining a random number as > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>an limit > >> > >> > >>>>>for number of methos in an interface. > >>>>>an interface should be designed by the needs of the > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>context and the > >> > >> > >>>>>purposal. > >>>>>i just disagree with him! > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>I wonder what it is you want > >>>>>>to do with a proxy that you can"t do by simply > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>subclassing? Or AOP? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>He considers to use such a complex thing like AOP but > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>refuses to use > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>such a basic thing like Interfaces? > >>>>> > >>>>>Did you and your colegues read the links i sent in my last mail? > >>>>>If not i suggest it would be a good idea to do so. > >>>>>It's worth it, trust me! > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>Johan Compagner wrote: > >>>>>>But this is not really possible because the internals > of page are > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>pretty > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>importand for wicket to let it work > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>This is a serious indication that the design has some flaws > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>in it. A > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>design should always be as interchangebale and modular > as possible. > >>>>> > >>>>>Again: I think in the discussion it's missed that you can > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>even resuse > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>an implementation in a interfaces based design by delegation... > >>>>>And it ignores the fact that you can extend interfaces as well > >>>>>(interface inheritance is a nice thing)... > >>>>>I can't imagine what's so hard to have a Page just as > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>Interface. If > >> > >> > >>>>>you can not deal with client objects as interfaced objects > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>you have a > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>problem in your design. I do use interfaces every day and i > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>have never > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>ever had a big problem with that. It's all about how > familiar and > >>>>>comfortable you with good modular design pratics. Loosly > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>coupling is > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>the key word! and loosly coupling is possible. you may have > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>to think a > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>bit more about your design, but it safes you so much > time later... > >>>>> > >>>>>Maybe if i have some time i will rewrite a very little part > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>of wicket > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>to use interfaces to show that it's definetly not a > problem to use > >>>>>interfaces and that you will get good benefits from it. > >>>>>Btw: A good design isn't done in a sec, but it's worth to > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>thake the > >> > >> > >>>>>time to do so... > >>>>> > >>>>>Another thing i don't understand is, that some ppl > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>sometimes say that > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>the refuse to use interfaces on wicket but sometimes there are > >>>>>interfaces used in wicket. So if you can use an interface for a > >>>>>sessionFactory then why can't you use an interface for > the session > >>>>>itself? > >>>>> > >>>>>Well, however, i think when wicket reaches 2.0 and it's > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>clear enough > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>which functionalities are implemented i may be a good idea > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>to review > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>the source and move over to use interfaces where they > make sense... > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>And one thing not to forget: Wicket uses "wicket:id" tags > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>to loosly > >> > >> > >>>>>couple html with the logic-code. That is the most valuable > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>thing about > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>wicket! > >>>>>But it's a bad thing to not continue the loosly coupling > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>aproach in > >> > >> > >>>>>the api. Think about it! Loosly compling on the html/code > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>side is the > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>key thing that makes wicket better than other frameworks. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>So continue > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>to use that in the api and you have done the best way that > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>is possible > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>with java! > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>And please remeber: It's cunstructive critism which i try > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>to provide. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>I just want to get wicket as the best what's possible bc > the basic > >>>>>ideas of wicket are great! > >>>>> > >>>>>Thanx for your attention, > >>>>>Dave > >>>>> > >>>>>PS: I don't say i know the overall truth i just provided > my toughts > >>>>>:-) > >>>>> > >>>>>Juergen Donnerstag wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>David, > >>>>>> > >>>>>>we did have a very hot discussion about that topic just a > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>week or two > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>>ago. Please check the mail archiv (gmane) for details. But > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>I can tell > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>>you it was a very deliberate decison to implement it the > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>way it is. > >> > >> > >>>>>>Juergen > >>>>>> > >>>>>>On 8/2/05, David Liebeherr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>Hi Juergen, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>Juergen Donnerstag wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>David, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>yes you're right we have to work on the docs, has been > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>on our list > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>>>>and is under construction. Did you check out our wiki and (the > >>>>>>>>outdated) user guide. it should provide at a beginner > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>some inside into Wicket. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>>>>You mentioned you would simplifiy the API even further. You > >>>>>>>>mentioned IModel. Anything else that comes into your mind? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>I my gosh, do you realy want to get me started on that? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>:-) No, for > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>>>real: > >>>>>>>There are lot's of things that need very much simplification. > >>>>>>>When i have some time, we may discuss that in detail > (if you are > >>>>>>>interested) in a chat or something like that (Log of > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>chat goes to > >> > >> > >>>>>>>maillinglist/wiki of course). > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>One of the much important things is to realize the > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>"programm to an > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>>>interface, not to an implementation" principle. > >>>>>>>For exmaple: > >>>>>>>Session should be an Interface and SessionImpl should > be (one!) > >>>>>>>implementation of it. > >>>>>>>Btw: Don't name interfaces with a I prefix, that is > not so good. > >>>>>>>It should be always like that: > >>>>>>>Car exmaple: > >>>>>>>interface Car {}; > >>>>>>>class CarImpl impements Car {}; > >>>>>>>or > >>>>>>>class BmwImpl implements Car{}; > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>I know ppl have different opinions about such things, > but the i > >>>>>>>discussed those things for a rather long time with a lot of > >>>>>>>developers and some very very good (actually one of the best > >>>>>>>programmers out there). I have lot's of serious reasons > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>why i think > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>>>you should follow this naming convention. And the most > important > >>>>>>>thing is: Use interfaces rather then concrete implementation! > >>>>>>>And another very very thing is: Use delegation rather > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>than concrete > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>>>inheritance! > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>Again, i have very serious reasons why i think that way. > >>>>>>>And it does not mean much more work to do with proper > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>coding tools > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>>>(Like IntelliJ IDEA). > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>I think the Idea of Wicket is geniusly! > >>>>>>>Especialy the part that code is attached to free > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>placeable tags with > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>>>a proper wicket:id! > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>But i think at this point the API needs a revision to > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>simplify it > >> > >> > >>>>>>>and to realy follow some very important rules (like avoiding > >>>>>>>concrete inheritance). > >>>>>>>Btw: have a look on that: > >>>>>>>http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-08-2003/jw-0801-too > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >lbox.html > > > > > >>>>>>>AND AFTER THAT ALSO READ THAT! --> > >>>>>>>http://jtiger.org/articles/why-extends-is-not-evil.html > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>It explains very very well what's the problem with concrete > >>>>>>>inheritance. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>And last but not least: > >>>>>>>I think you core developers have done a very good job and > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>i'm very > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>>>happy to use wicket! > >>>>>>>Everything i said (and will say) is not meant as a > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>complain i realy > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>>>want to participate in wicket and to make it the best WebApp > >>>>>>>framework that exists (And i think wicket can reach that > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>target! If > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>>>i think about all that XMl-Config files crap like with > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>Struts and > >> > >> > >>>>>>>JSF :-)) > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>So please always thake what i say at what is it meant to be: > >>>>>>>Constructive critism. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>Thanx again for your Work, > >>>>>>>Dave > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>Juergen > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>On 8/2/05, David Liebeherr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>Juergen Donnerstag wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>Sorry, I guess except the javadoc there is no extra > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>doc on it. > >> > >> > >>>>>>>>>>What is > >>>>>>>>>>your question? Signin and Signin2 and not very complex. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>I think this is precisely the Problem. > >>>>>>>>>I found it already out by myself, but it took me some > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>time to find > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>>>>>and understand that the key thing is the checkAccess-method. > >>>>>>>>>You think it is very simple code. But you are one of the > >>>>>>>>>Developers that wrote the Libs, so you know what > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>checkAccess do > >> > >> > >>>>>>>>>and you know that you do not have to search in the > >>>>>>>>>WebApplication-Class code to search where it is > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>redirected to the > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>>>>>Login-Page. > >>>>>>>>>So i think the problem is for outsiders and newbees of > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>the project > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>>>>>many many things are not so clear as you might think. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>I think the lack of good Documentation - and by > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>documentation i > >> > >> > >>>>>>>>>don't mean a simple doc of the API methods, rather a > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>documentation > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>>>>>describes the realtionships between components and how > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>to use them > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>>>>>- is one of the biggest problems (or todos) for wicket. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>Another Problem is, that's at least my personal opinion (and > >>>>>>>>>please thake it as constructive critic and not just as > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>a complain) > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>>>>>is that the api is yet to complex. I thought one of the > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>main goals > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>>>>>of wicket was to keep the learning curve as low as > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>possible. But > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>>>>>the api is to complex for that i think. Especialy the > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>IModel API > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>>>>>is very complex and i think it would be a very good idea to > >>>>>>>>>simplify it much more. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>I mean at this time i am a newbee to wicket for my > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>self. But that > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>>>>>is good bc that way i can provide the "sight of a newbee". > >>>>>>>>>Developers of the proect may thing that something is > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>"quite easy", > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>>>>>but if i'm a developer of the project i know too much > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>already to > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>>>>>tell if a thing can be easy understood. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>But however thanks for your help, Dave > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>Juergen > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>On 8/1/05, David Liebeherr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>Is there any documentation/tutorial available for > the Signin > >>>>>>>>>>>Exmaple? > >>>>>>>>>>>I realy have some problems understanding how it works. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>Thanx, > >>>>>>>>>>>Dave > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>PS: Wicket ROCKS! > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>------------------------------------------------------- > >>>>>>>>>>>SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux > Migration > >>>>>>>>>>>Strategies > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>from IBM. Find simple to follow Roadmaps, straightforward > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>articles, > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>informative Webcasts and more! Get everything you > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>need to get up > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>to speed, fast. > >>>>>>>>>>>http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7477&alloc_id=16492&op=click > >>>>>>>>>>>_______________________________________________ > >>>>>>>>>>>Wicket-user mailing list > >>>>>>>>>>>[email protected] > >>>>>>>>>>>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>------------------------------------------------------- > >>>>>>>>>>SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux Migration > >>>>>>>>>>Strategies > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>from IBM. Find simple to follow Roadmaps, straightforward > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>articles, > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>informative Webcasts and more! Get everything you need > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>to get up > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>>>>>>to speed, fast. > >>>>>>>>>>http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_idt77&alloc_id492&op=click > >>>>>>>>>>_______________________________________________ > >>>>>>>>>>Wicket-user mailing list > >>>>>>>>>>[email protected] > >>>>>>>>>>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>------------------------------------------------------- > >>>>>>>>>SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux Migration > >>>>>>>>>Strategies > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>from IBM. Find simple to follow Roadmaps, straightforward > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>articles, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>informative Webcasts and more! Get everything you need > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>to get up > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>>>>>to speed, fast. > >>>>>>>>>http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7477&alloc_id=16492&op=click > >>>>>>>>>_______________________________________________ > >>>>>>>>>Wicket-user mailing list > >>>>>>>>>[email protected] > >>>>>>>>>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>------------------------------------------------------- > >>>>>>>>SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux Migration > >>>>>>>>Strategies from IBM. Find simple to follow Roadmaps, > >>>>>>>>straightforward articles, informative Webcasts and more! Get > >>>>>>>>everything you need to get up to speed, fast. > >>>>>>>>http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_idt77&alloc_id492&op=click > >>>>>>>>_______________________________________________ > >>>>>>>>Wicket-user mailing list > >>>>>>>>[email protected] > >>>>>>>>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>------------------------------------------------------- > >>>>>>>SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux Migration > >>>>>>>Strategies from IBM. Find simple to follow Roadmaps, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>straightforward > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>>>articles, informative Webcasts and more! Get everything > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>you need to > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>>>get up to speed, fast. > >>>>>>>http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7477&alloc_id=16492&op=click > >>>>>>>_______________________________________________ > >>>>>>>Wicket-user mailing list > >>>>>>>[email protected] > >>>>>>>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>------------------------------------------------------- > >>>>>SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux Migration > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>Strategies > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>from IBM. Find simple to follow Roadmaps, straightforward > >>>> > >>>> > >>articles, > >> > >> > >>>>>informative Webcasts and more! Get everything you need to > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>get up to > >> > >> > >>>>>speed, fast. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7477&alloc_id=16492&op=click > >> > >> > >>>>>_______________________________________________ > >>>>>Wicket-user mailing list > >>>>>[email protected] > >>>>>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>------------------------------------------------------- > >>>>SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux Migration > >>>> > >>>> > >>Strategies > >> > >> > >>>>from IBM. Find simple to follow Roadmaps, straightforward > articles, > >>> > >>> > >>>>informative Webcasts and more! Get everything you need to > get up to > >>>>speed, fast. > >>>>http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7477&alloc_id=16492&op=click > >>>>_______________________________________________ > >>>>Wicket-user mailing list > >>>>[email protected] > >>>>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>>------------------------------------------------------- > >>>SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux Migration > >>> > >>> > >>Strategies > >>>from IBM. Find simple to follow Roadmaps, straightforward articles, > >> > >> > >>>informative Webcasts and more! Get everything you need to > get up to > >>>speed, fast. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_idt77&alloc_id492&opÌk > >>>_______________________________________________ > >>>Wicket-user mailing list > >>>[email protected] > >>>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>------------------------------------------------------- > >>SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux Migration > Strategies > >>from IBM. Find simple to follow Roadmaps, straightforward articles, > >>informative Webcasts and more! Get everything you need to get up to > >>speed, fast. > >>http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7477&alloc_id=16492&op=click > >>_______________________________________________ > >>Wicket-user mailing list > >>[email protected] > >>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > >------------------------------------------------------- > >SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux Migration > Strategies > >from IBM. Find simple to follow Roadmaps, straightforward articles, > >informative Webcasts and more! Get everything you need to get up to > >speed, fast. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_idt77&alloc_id492&opÌk > >_______________________________________________ > >Wicket-user mailing list > >[email protected] > >https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux Migration > Strategies from IBM. Find simple to follow Roadmaps, > straightforward articles, informative Webcasts and more! Get > everything you need to get up to speed, fast. > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7477&alloc_id=16492&op=click > _______________________________________________ > Wicket-user mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user > > > ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux Migration Strategies from IBM. Find simple to follow Roadmaps, straightforward articles, informative Webcasts and more! Get everything you need to get up to speed, fast. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_idt77&alloc_id492&op=click _______________________________________________ Wicket-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
