You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@wicket.apache.org by Thijs Vonk <vo...@gmail.com> on 2012/09/06 22:27:26 UTC
Add an invisible component to an AjaxRequestTarget target
Hi,
We have partial page updates all over a page. So panels and components
all over the place that need Ajax updates.
We're using an Interface on those components and with an IVisitor we
traverse the component tree and add every component to the target that
has this interface.
But during development we see that we get errors in the ajax debug log
when these components have an invisible state. These components
themselves can have this state but some of the times, the parent
component is invisible. In these cases when such a hidden component is
added to the AjaxRequestTarget we get an error in the ajax debug log.
Adding the isVisible check before adding the component to the target
could save us in some situations but not all (as it might get visible or
invisible) at a later state.
How can I prevent these components from being added to the
AjaxRequestTarget? Or from the error being thrown? I had hoped that a
component being in an invisible state (somewhere in the tree) wouldn't
get rendered. It's not really a problem in a 'deployment' situation, but
it's not 'nice' either.
Thijs
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
Re: Add an invisible component to an AjaxRequestTarget target
Posted by Thijs <vo...@gmail.com>.
Thanks Bas and Martin,
I'll have to update company rules then ;-)
Thijs
On 17-10-2012 9:56, Bas Gooren wrote:
> Thijs,
>
> We've been working with wicket for a number of years now, and yes, we
> have two rules (that feel very natural after those years...):
>
> - Do I need to replace this component over AJAX: call
> setOutputMarkupId(true)
> - Idem, but can the component itself be hidden (usually quite visible
> as we override onConfigure() to control visibility): call
> setOutputMarkupPlaceholderTag(true).
>
> The beauty of wicket is that it is quite clear if you forget.
> The "AJAX Debug" window in the bottom right of your browser window
> will turn red, and once you open it, will say it cannot replace a
> component since it's not in the markup.
>
> Met vriendelijke groet,
> Kind regards,
>
> Bas Gooren
>
> Op 17-10-2012 9:52, schreef Thijs:
>>
>>
>> On 17-10-2012 9:40, Martin Grigorov wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 9:27 AM, Thijs <vo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Revisiting this.
>>>> I'm still having some troubles with this.
>>>>
>>>> Say I have:
>>>> Label a;
>>>> add(a = Label(...)
>>>> { onConfigure(){setVisible(*false due to some condition*)}});
>>>> a.setOutputMarkupId(true);
>>>>
>>>> add(new AjaxLink(..){
>>>> onClick(AjaxRequestTarget t){t.add(a);}
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> In this case the debug window will start calling mayhem as clearly
>>>> label a
>>>> is not on the page so it can't find the component to update.
>>>>
>>>> So my question is:
>>>> Is it common practice to always do something like:
>>>> AjaxLink(){
>>>> onClick(AjaxRequestTarget t){
>>>> if(a.isVisibleInHierarchy())
>>>> t.add(a);
>>>> }
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> Or should I always do:
>>>> add(a = Label(...)
>>>> { onConfigure(){setVisible(*false due to some condition*)}});
>>>> a.setOutputMarkupId(true);
>>>> showPhoto.setOutputMarkupPlaceholderTag(true);
>>> I think you need : a.setOutputMarkupPlaceholderTag(true), not sure
>>> what 'showPhoto' is.
>> Yes correct.
>>>
>>> setOutputMarkupPlaceholderTag(true) calls setOutputMarkupId(true) for
>>> you, so there is no need to call both of them.
>>>
>>>> Or could the AjaxRequestTarget be modified to do the
>>>> isVisibleInHierarchy()
>>>> before actually rendering the component?
>>> This is possible but it will lead to more confusion. In this case your
>>> component wont be modified at all and there wont be any indication. We
>>> can add a WARN in the logs but my experience shows that not many
>>> developers actually follow the logs.
>> Not sure what the issue would be with this. As the component isn't
>> visible on the anyway.
>>
>>
>> But basically your answer is: Yes when you add a component to the
>> AjaxRequestTarget that might not be visible, make sure that
>> setOutputMarkupPlaceholderTag(true) is always called on that component?!
>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 6-9-2012 22:47, Thijs Vonk wrote:
>>>>> OK thnx will give it a try
>>>>>
>>>>> On 6/9/12 22:39, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
>>>>>> isVisibleInHierarchy() will make sure all parents are visible as
>>>>>> well
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -igor
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Thijs Vonk <vo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We have partial page updates all over a page. So panels and
>>>>>>> components
>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>> over the place that need Ajax updates.
>>>>>>> We're using an Interface on those components and with an
>>>>>>> IVisitor we
>>>>>>> traverse the component tree and add every component to the
>>>>>>> target that
>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>> this interface.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But during development we see that we get errors in the ajax
>>>>>>> debug log
>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>> these components have an invisible state. These components
>>>>>>> themselves
>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>> have this state but some of the times, the parent component is
>>>>>>> invisible. In
>>>>>>> these cases when such a hidden component is added to the
>>>>>>> AjaxRequestTarget
>>>>>>> we get an error in the ajax debug log.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Adding the isVisible check before adding the component to the
>>>>>>> target
>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>> save us in some situations but not all (as it might get visible or
>>>>>>> invisible) at a later state.
>>>>>>> How can I prevent these components from being added to the
>>>>>>> AjaxRequestTarget? Or from the error being thrown? I had hoped
>>>>>>> that a
>>>>>>> component being in an invisible state (somewhere in the tree)
>>>>>>> wouldn't
>>>>>>> get
>>>>>>> rendered. It's not really a problem in a 'deployment' situation,
>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>> it's
>>>>>>> not 'nice' either.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thijs
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
>>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
Re: Add an invisible component to an AjaxRequestTarget target
Posted by Bas Gooren <ba...@iswd.nl>.
Thijs,
We've been working with wicket for a number of years now, and yes, we
have two rules (that feel very natural after those years...):
- Do I need to replace this component over AJAX: call
setOutputMarkupId(true)
- Idem, but can the component itself be hidden (usually quite visible as
we override onConfigure() to control visibility): call
setOutputMarkupPlaceholderTag(true).
The beauty of wicket is that it is quite clear if you forget.
The "AJAX Debug" window in the bottom right of your browser window will
turn red, and once you open it, will say it cannot replace a component
since it's not in the markup.
Met vriendelijke groet,
Kind regards,
Bas Gooren
Op 17-10-2012 9:52, schreef Thijs:
>
>
> On 17-10-2012 9:40, Martin Grigorov wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 9:27 AM, Thijs <vo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Revisiting this.
>>> I'm still having some troubles with this.
>>>
>>> Say I have:
>>> Label a;
>>> add(a = Label(...)
>>> { onConfigure(){setVisible(*false due to some condition*)}});
>>> a.setOutputMarkupId(true);
>>>
>>> add(new AjaxLink(..){
>>> onClick(AjaxRequestTarget t){t.add(a);}
>>> };
>>>
>>> In this case the debug window will start calling mayhem as clearly
>>> label a
>>> is not on the page so it can't find the component to update.
>>>
>>> So my question is:
>>> Is it common practice to always do something like:
>>> AjaxLink(){
>>> onClick(AjaxRequestTarget t){
>>> if(a.isVisibleInHierarchy())
>>> t.add(a);
>>> }
>>> }
>>>
>>> Or should I always do:
>>> add(a = Label(...)
>>> { onConfigure(){setVisible(*false due to some condition*)}});
>>> a.setOutputMarkupId(true);
>>> showPhoto.setOutputMarkupPlaceholderTag(true);
>> I think you need : a.setOutputMarkupPlaceholderTag(true), not sure
>> what 'showPhoto' is.
> Yes correct.
>>
>> setOutputMarkupPlaceholderTag(true) calls setOutputMarkupId(true) for
>> you, so there is no need to call both of them.
>>
>>> Or could the AjaxRequestTarget be modified to do the
>>> isVisibleInHierarchy()
>>> before actually rendering the component?
>> This is possible but it will lead to more confusion. In this case your
>> component wont be modified at all and there wont be any indication. We
>> can add a WARN in the logs but my experience shows that not many
>> developers actually follow the logs.
> Not sure what the issue would be with this. As the component isn't
> visible on the anyway.
>
>
> But basically your answer is: Yes when you add a component to the
> AjaxRequestTarget that might not be visible, make sure that
> setOutputMarkupPlaceholderTag(true) is always called on that component?!
>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>>
>>> On 6-9-2012 22:47, Thijs Vonk wrote:
>>>> OK thnx will give it a try
>>>>
>>>> On 6/9/12 22:39, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
>>>>> isVisibleInHierarchy() will make sure all parents are visible as well
>>>>>
>>>>> -igor
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Thijs Vonk <vo...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We have partial page updates all over a page. So panels and
>>>>>> components
>>>>>> all
>>>>>> over the place that need Ajax updates.
>>>>>> We're using an Interface on those components and with an IVisitor we
>>>>>> traverse the component tree and add every component to the target
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> has
>>>>>> this interface.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But during development we see that we get errors in the ajax
>>>>>> debug log
>>>>>> when
>>>>>> these components have an invisible state. These components
>>>>>> themselves
>>>>>> can
>>>>>> have this state but some of the times, the parent component is
>>>>>> invisible. In
>>>>>> these cases when such a hidden component is added to the
>>>>>> AjaxRequestTarget
>>>>>> we get an error in the ajax debug log.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Adding the isVisible check before adding the component to the target
>>>>>> could
>>>>>> save us in some situations but not all (as it might get visible or
>>>>>> invisible) at a later state.
>>>>>> How can I prevent these components from being added to the
>>>>>> AjaxRequestTarget? Or from the error being thrown? I had hoped
>>>>>> that a
>>>>>> component being in an invisible state (somewhere in the tree)
>>>>>> wouldn't
>>>>>> get
>>>>>> rendered. It's not really a problem in a 'deployment' situation, but
>>>>>> it's
>>>>>> not 'nice' either.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thijs
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
>
Re: Add an invisible component to an AjaxRequestTarget target
Posted by Martin Grigorov <mg...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 10:11 AM, Thijs <vo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes I know.
> This is something we just silently ignored over the last years, as it was
> not affecting any functionality.
> But now with the red flashing debug window it's getting annoying. (So some
> good has come from that ) And we were wondering if what we did was actually
> wrong ;)
I'm glad you like the flashing and "becoming red" functionality in the
debug window. Now it catches the developer attention :-)
>
> Thijs
>
>
>
> On 17-10-2012 10:01, Bas Gooren wrote:
>>
>> And to add to this: make sure you call setOutputMarkupPlaceholderTag(true)
>> before you render the (possibly invisible) component for the first time.
>>
>> Suppose your component is hidden (setVisible(false)) on the first render.
>> If you now call setOutputMarkupPlaceholderTag(true) in the ajax request
>> that needs to repaint the component, it still won't work as there is no
>> markup placeholder.
>>
>> So call setOutputMarkupPlaceholderTag(true) when you create the component
>> :-)
>>
>> Met vriendelijke groet,
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Bas Gooren
>>
>> Op 17-10-2012 9:57, schreef Martin Grigorov:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 9:52 AM, Thijs <vo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 17-10-2012 9:40, Martin Grigorov wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 9:27 AM, Thijs <vo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Revisiting this.
>>>>>> I'm still having some troubles with this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Say I have:
>>>>>> Label a;
>>>>>> add(a = Label(...)
>>>>>> { onConfigure(){setVisible(*false due to some condition*)}});
>>>>>> a.setOutputMarkupId(true);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> add(new AjaxLink(..){
>>>>>> onClick(AjaxRequestTarget t){t.add(a);}
>>>>>> };
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In this case the debug window will start calling mayhem as clearly
>>>>>> label
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> is not on the page so it can't find the component to update.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So my question is:
>>>>>> Is it common practice to always do something like:
>>>>>> AjaxLink(){
>>>>>> onClick(AjaxRequestTarget t){
>>>>>> if(a.isVisibleInHierarchy())
>>>>>> t.add(a);
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or should I always do:
>>>>>> add(a = Label(...)
>>>>>> { onConfigure(){setVisible(*false due to some condition*)}});
>>>>>> a.setOutputMarkupId(true);
>>>>>> showPhoto.setOutputMarkupPlaceholderTag(true);
>>>>>
>>>>> I think you need : a.setOutputMarkupPlaceholderTag(true), not sure
>>>>> what 'showPhoto' is.
>>>>
>>>> Yes correct.
>>>>
>>>>> setOutputMarkupPlaceholderTag(true) calls setOutputMarkupId(true) for
>>>>> you, so there is no need to call both of them.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Or could the AjaxRequestTarget be modified to do the
>>>>>> isVisibleInHierarchy()
>>>>>> before actually rendering the component?
>>>>>
>>>>> This is possible but it will lead to more confusion. In this case your
>>>>> component wont be modified at all and there wont be any indication. We
>>>>> can add a WARN in the logs but my experience shows that not many
>>>>> developers actually follow the logs.
>>>>
>>>> Not sure what the issue would be with this. As the component isn't
>>>> visible
>>>> on the anyway.
>>>>
>>> Exactly! The component is invisible and your logic modifies something
>>> in it and tries to repaint it. So it seems you actually want to make
>>> it visible. But with your proposal to just ignore it if it is
>>> invisible then this will be very confusing, IMO.
>>>
>>>> But basically your answer is: Yes when you add a component to the
>>>> AjaxRequestTarget that might not be visible, make sure that
>>>> setOutputMarkupPlaceholderTag(true) is always called on that component?!
>>>
>>> Right.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6-9-2012 22:47, Thijs Vonk wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> OK thnx will give it a try
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 6/9/12 22:39, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> isVisibleInHierarchy() will make sure all parents are visible as
>>>>>>>> well
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -igor
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Thijs Vonk <vo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We have partial page updates all over a page. So panels and
>>>>>>>>> components
>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>> over the place that need Ajax updates.
>>>>>>>>> We're using an Interface on those components and with an IVisitor
>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>> traverse the component tree and add every component to the target
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>> this interface.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But during development we see that we get errors in the ajax debug
>>>>>>>>> log
>>>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>> these components have an invisible state. These components
>>>>>>>>> themselves
>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>> have this state but some of the times, the parent component is
>>>>>>>>> invisible. In
>>>>>>>>> these cases when such a hidden component is added to the
>>>>>>>>> AjaxRequestTarget
>>>>>>>>> we get an error in the ajax debug log.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Adding the isVisible check before adding the component to the
>>>>>>>>> target
>>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>>> save us in some situations but not all (as it might get visible or
>>>>>>>>> invisible) at a later state.
>>>>>>>>> How can I prevent these components from being added to the
>>>>>>>>> AjaxRequestTarget? Or from the error being thrown? I had hoped that
>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>> component being in an invisible state (somewhere in the tree)
>>>>>>>>> wouldn't
>>>>>>>>> get
>>>>>>>>> rendered. It's not really a problem in a 'deployment' situation,
>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>> it's
>>>>>>>>> not 'nice' either.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thijs
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
>
--
Martin Grigorov
jWeekend
Training, Consulting, Development
http://jWeekend.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
Re: Add an invisible component to an AjaxRequestTarget target
Posted by Thijs <vo...@gmail.com>.
Yes I know.
This is something we just silently ignored over the last years, as it
was not affecting any functionality.
But now with the red flashing debug window it's getting annoying. (So
some good has come from that ) And we were wondering if what we did was
actually wrong ;)
Thijs
On 17-10-2012 10:01, Bas Gooren wrote:
> And to add to this: make sure you call
> setOutputMarkupPlaceholderTag(true) before you render the (possibly
> invisible) component for the first time.
>
> Suppose your component is hidden (setVisible(false)) on the first render.
> If you now call setOutputMarkupPlaceholderTag(true) in the ajax
> request that needs to repaint the component, it still won't work as
> there is no markup placeholder.
>
> So call setOutputMarkupPlaceholderTag(true) when you create the
> component :-)
>
> Met vriendelijke groet,
> Kind regards,
>
> Bas Gooren
>
> Op 17-10-2012 9:57, schreef Martin Grigorov:
>> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 9:52 AM, Thijs <vo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 17-10-2012 9:40, Martin Grigorov wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 9:27 AM, Thijs <vo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Revisiting this.
>>>>> I'm still having some troubles with this.
>>>>>
>>>>> Say I have:
>>>>> Label a;
>>>>> add(a = Label(...)
>>>>> { onConfigure(){setVisible(*false due to some condition*)}});
>>>>> a.setOutputMarkupId(true);
>>>>>
>>>>> add(new AjaxLink(..){
>>>>> onClick(AjaxRequestTarget t){t.add(a);}
>>>>> };
>>>>>
>>>>> In this case the debug window will start calling mayhem as clearly
>>>>> label
>>>>> a
>>>>> is not on the page so it can't find the component to update.
>>>>>
>>>>> So my question is:
>>>>> Is it common practice to always do something like:
>>>>> AjaxLink(){
>>>>> onClick(AjaxRequestTarget t){
>>>>> if(a.isVisibleInHierarchy())
>>>>> t.add(a);
>>>>> }
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> Or should I always do:
>>>>> add(a = Label(...)
>>>>> { onConfigure(){setVisible(*false due to some condition*)}});
>>>>> a.setOutputMarkupId(true);
>>>>> showPhoto.setOutputMarkupPlaceholderTag(true);
>>>> I think you need : a.setOutputMarkupPlaceholderTag(true), not sure
>>>> what 'showPhoto' is.
>>> Yes correct.
>>>
>>>> setOutputMarkupPlaceholderTag(true) calls setOutputMarkupId(true) for
>>>> you, so there is no need to call both of them.
>>>>
>>>>> Or could the AjaxRequestTarget be modified to do the
>>>>> isVisibleInHierarchy()
>>>>> before actually rendering the component?
>>>> This is possible but it will lead to more confusion. In this case your
>>>> component wont be modified at all and there wont be any indication. We
>>>> can add a WARN in the logs but my experience shows that not many
>>>> developers actually follow the logs.
>>> Not sure what the issue would be with this. As the component isn't
>>> visible
>>> on the anyway.
>>>
>> Exactly! The component is invisible and your logic modifies something
>> in it and tries to repaint it. So it seems you actually want to make
>> it visible. But with your proposal to just ignore it if it is
>> invisible then this will be very confusing, IMO.
>>
>>> But basically your answer is: Yes when you add a component to the
>>> AjaxRequestTarget that might not be visible, make sure that
>>> setOutputMarkupPlaceholderTag(true) is always called on that
>>> component?!
>> Right.
>>
>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 6-9-2012 22:47, Thijs Vonk wrote:
>>>>>> OK thnx will give it a try
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/9/12 22:39, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
>>>>>>> isVisibleInHierarchy() will make sure all parents are visible as
>>>>>>> well
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -igor
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Thijs Vonk <vo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We have partial page updates all over a page. So panels and
>>>>>>>> components
>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>> over the place that need Ajax updates.
>>>>>>>> We're using an Interface on those components and with an
>>>>>>>> IVisitor we
>>>>>>>> traverse the component tree and add every component to the
>>>>>>>> target that
>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>> this interface.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But during development we see that we get errors in the ajax
>>>>>>>> debug log
>>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>> these components have an invisible state. These components
>>>>>>>> themselves
>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>> have this state but some of the times, the parent component is
>>>>>>>> invisible. In
>>>>>>>> these cases when such a hidden component is added to the
>>>>>>>> AjaxRequestTarget
>>>>>>>> we get an error in the ajax debug log.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Adding the isVisible check before adding the component to the
>>>>>>>> target
>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>> save us in some situations but not all (as it might get visible or
>>>>>>>> invisible) at a later state.
>>>>>>>> How can I prevent these components from being added to the
>>>>>>>> AjaxRequestTarget? Or from the error being thrown? I had hoped
>>>>>>>> that a
>>>>>>>> component being in an invisible state (somewhere in the tree)
>>>>>>>> wouldn't
>>>>>>>> get
>>>>>>>> rendered. It's not really a problem in a 'deployment'
>>>>>>>> situation, but
>>>>>>>> it's
>>>>>>>> not 'nice' either.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thijs
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
Re: Add an invisible component to an AjaxRequestTarget target
Posted by Bas Gooren <ba...@iswd.nl>.
And to add to this: make sure you call
setOutputMarkupPlaceholderTag(true) before you render the (possibly
invisible) component for the first time.
Suppose your component is hidden (setVisible(false)) on the first render.
If you now call setOutputMarkupPlaceholderTag(true) in the ajax request
that needs to repaint the component, it still won't work as there is no
markup placeholder.
So call setOutputMarkupPlaceholderTag(true) when you create the
component :-)
Met vriendelijke groet,
Kind regards,
Bas Gooren
Op 17-10-2012 9:57, schreef Martin Grigorov:
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 9:52 AM, Thijs <vo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 17-10-2012 9:40, Martin Grigorov wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 9:27 AM, Thijs <vo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Revisiting this.
>>>> I'm still having some troubles with this.
>>>>
>>>> Say I have:
>>>> Label a;
>>>> add(a = Label(...)
>>>> { onConfigure(){setVisible(*false due to some condition*)}});
>>>> a.setOutputMarkupId(true);
>>>>
>>>> add(new AjaxLink(..){
>>>> onClick(AjaxRequestTarget t){t.add(a);}
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> In this case the debug window will start calling mayhem as clearly label
>>>> a
>>>> is not on the page so it can't find the component to update.
>>>>
>>>> So my question is:
>>>> Is it common practice to always do something like:
>>>> AjaxLink(){
>>>> onClick(AjaxRequestTarget t){
>>>> if(a.isVisibleInHierarchy())
>>>> t.add(a);
>>>> }
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> Or should I always do:
>>>> add(a = Label(...)
>>>> { onConfigure(){setVisible(*false due to some condition*)}});
>>>> a.setOutputMarkupId(true);
>>>> showPhoto.setOutputMarkupPlaceholderTag(true);
>>> I think you need : a.setOutputMarkupPlaceholderTag(true), not sure
>>> what 'showPhoto' is.
>> Yes correct.
>>
>>> setOutputMarkupPlaceholderTag(true) calls setOutputMarkupId(true) for
>>> you, so there is no need to call both of them.
>>>
>>>> Or could the AjaxRequestTarget be modified to do the
>>>> isVisibleInHierarchy()
>>>> before actually rendering the component?
>>> This is possible but it will lead to more confusion. In this case your
>>> component wont be modified at all and there wont be any indication. We
>>> can add a WARN in the logs but my experience shows that not many
>>> developers actually follow the logs.
>> Not sure what the issue would be with this. As the component isn't visible
>> on the anyway.
>>
> Exactly! The component is invisible and your logic modifies something
> in it and tries to repaint it. So it seems you actually want to make
> it visible. But with your proposal to just ignore it if it is
> invisible then this will be very confusing, IMO.
>
>> But basically your answer is: Yes when you add a component to the
>> AjaxRequestTarget that might not be visible, make sure that
>> setOutputMarkupPlaceholderTag(true) is always called on that component?!
> Right.
>
>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 6-9-2012 22:47, Thijs Vonk wrote:
>>>>> OK thnx will give it a try
>>>>>
>>>>> On 6/9/12 22:39, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
>>>>>> isVisibleInHierarchy() will make sure all parents are visible as well
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -igor
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Thijs Vonk <vo...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We have partial page updates all over a page. So panels and components
>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>> over the place that need Ajax updates.
>>>>>>> We're using an Interface on those components and with an IVisitor we
>>>>>>> traverse the component tree and add every component to the target that
>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>> this interface.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But during development we see that we get errors in the ajax debug log
>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>> these components have an invisible state. These components themselves
>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>> have this state but some of the times, the parent component is
>>>>>>> invisible. In
>>>>>>> these cases when such a hidden component is added to the
>>>>>>> AjaxRequestTarget
>>>>>>> we get an error in the ajax debug log.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Adding the isVisible check before adding the component to the target
>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>> save us in some situations but not all (as it might get visible or
>>>>>>> invisible) at a later state.
>>>>>>> How can I prevent these components from being added to the
>>>>>>> AjaxRequestTarget? Or from the error being thrown? I had hoped that a
>>>>>>> component being in an invisible state (somewhere in the tree) wouldn't
>>>>>>> get
>>>>>>> rendered. It's not really a problem in a 'deployment' situation, but
>>>>>>> it's
>>>>>>> not 'nice' either.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thijs
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
>>
>
>
Re: Add an invisible component to an AjaxRequestTarget target
Posted by Martin Grigorov <mg...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 9:52 AM, Thijs <vo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 17-10-2012 9:40, Martin Grigorov wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 9:27 AM, Thijs <vo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Revisiting this.
>>> I'm still having some troubles with this.
>>>
>>> Say I have:
>>> Label a;
>>> add(a = Label(...)
>>> { onConfigure(){setVisible(*false due to some condition*)}});
>>> a.setOutputMarkupId(true);
>>>
>>> add(new AjaxLink(..){
>>> onClick(AjaxRequestTarget t){t.add(a);}
>>> };
>>>
>>> In this case the debug window will start calling mayhem as clearly label
>>> a
>>> is not on the page so it can't find the component to update.
>>>
>>> So my question is:
>>> Is it common practice to always do something like:
>>> AjaxLink(){
>>> onClick(AjaxRequestTarget t){
>>> if(a.isVisibleInHierarchy())
>>> t.add(a);
>>> }
>>> }
>>>
>>> Or should I always do:
>>> add(a = Label(...)
>>> { onConfigure(){setVisible(*false due to some condition*)}});
>>> a.setOutputMarkupId(true);
>>> showPhoto.setOutputMarkupPlaceholderTag(true);
>>
>> I think you need : a.setOutputMarkupPlaceholderTag(true), not sure
>> what 'showPhoto' is.
>
> Yes correct.
>
>>
>> setOutputMarkupPlaceholderTag(true) calls setOutputMarkupId(true) for
>> you, so there is no need to call both of them.
>>
>>> Or could the AjaxRequestTarget be modified to do the
>>> isVisibleInHierarchy()
>>> before actually rendering the component?
>>
>> This is possible but it will lead to more confusion. In this case your
>> component wont be modified at all and there wont be any indication. We
>> can add a WARN in the logs but my experience shows that not many
>> developers actually follow the logs.
>
> Not sure what the issue would be with this. As the component isn't visible
> on the anyway.
>
Exactly! The component is invisible and your logic modifies something
in it and tries to repaint it. So it seems you actually want to make
it visible. But with your proposal to just ignore it if it is
invisible then this will be very confusing, IMO.
>
> But basically your answer is: Yes when you add a component to the
> AjaxRequestTarget that might not be visible, make sure that
> setOutputMarkupPlaceholderTag(true) is always called on that component?!
Right.
>
>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>>
>>> On 6-9-2012 22:47, Thijs Vonk wrote:
>>>>
>>>> OK thnx will give it a try
>>>>
>>>> On 6/9/12 22:39, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> isVisibleInHierarchy() will make sure all parents are visible as well
>>>>>
>>>>> -igor
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Thijs Vonk <vo...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We have partial page updates all over a page. So panels and components
>>>>>> all
>>>>>> over the place that need Ajax updates.
>>>>>> We're using an Interface on those components and with an IVisitor we
>>>>>> traverse the component tree and add every component to the target that
>>>>>> has
>>>>>> this interface.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But during development we see that we get errors in the ajax debug log
>>>>>> when
>>>>>> these components have an invisible state. These components themselves
>>>>>> can
>>>>>> have this state but some of the times, the parent component is
>>>>>> invisible. In
>>>>>> these cases when such a hidden component is added to the
>>>>>> AjaxRequestTarget
>>>>>> we get an error in the ajax debug log.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Adding the isVisible check before adding the component to the target
>>>>>> could
>>>>>> save us in some situations but not all (as it might get visible or
>>>>>> invisible) at a later state.
>>>>>> How can I prevent these components from being added to the
>>>>>> AjaxRequestTarget? Or from the error being thrown? I had hoped that a
>>>>>> component being in an invisible state (somewhere in the tree) wouldn't
>>>>>> get
>>>>>> rendered. It's not really a problem in a 'deployment' situation, but
>>>>>> it's
>>>>>> not 'nice' either.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thijs
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
>
--
Martin Grigorov
jWeekend
Training, Consulting, Development
http://jWeekend.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
Re: Add an invisible component to an AjaxRequestTarget target
Posted by Thijs <vo...@gmail.com>.
On 17-10-2012 9:40, Martin Grigorov wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 9:27 AM, Thijs <vo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Revisiting this.
>> I'm still having some troubles with this.
>>
>> Say I have:
>> Label a;
>> add(a = Label(...)
>> { onConfigure(){setVisible(*false due to some condition*)}});
>> a.setOutputMarkupId(true);
>>
>> add(new AjaxLink(..){
>> onClick(AjaxRequestTarget t){t.add(a);}
>> };
>>
>> In this case the debug window will start calling mayhem as clearly label a
>> is not on the page so it can't find the component to update.
>>
>> So my question is:
>> Is it common practice to always do something like:
>> AjaxLink(){
>> onClick(AjaxRequestTarget t){
>> if(a.isVisibleInHierarchy())
>> t.add(a);
>> }
>> }
>>
>> Or should I always do:
>> add(a = Label(...)
>> { onConfigure(){setVisible(*false due to some condition*)}});
>> a.setOutputMarkupId(true);
>> showPhoto.setOutputMarkupPlaceholderTag(true);
> I think you need : a.setOutputMarkupPlaceholderTag(true), not sure
> what 'showPhoto' is.
Yes correct.
>
> setOutputMarkupPlaceholderTag(true) calls setOutputMarkupId(true) for
> you, so there is no need to call both of them.
>
>> Or could the AjaxRequestTarget be modified to do the isVisibleInHierarchy()
>> before actually rendering the component?
> This is possible but it will lead to more confusion. In this case your
> component wont be modified at all and there wont be any indication. We
> can add a WARN in the logs but my experience shows that not many
> developers actually follow the logs.
Not sure what the issue would be with this. As the component isn't
visible on the anyway.
But basically your answer is: Yes when you add a component to the
AjaxRequestTarget that might not be visible, make sure that
setOutputMarkupPlaceholderTag(true) is always called on that component?!
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>> On 6-9-2012 22:47, Thijs Vonk wrote:
>>> OK thnx will give it a try
>>>
>>> On 6/9/12 22:39, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
>>>> isVisibleInHierarchy() will make sure all parents are visible as well
>>>>
>>>> -igor
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Thijs Vonk <vo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> We have partial page updates all over a page. So panels and components
>>>>> all
>>>>> over the place that need Ajax updates.
>>>>> We're using an Interface on those components and with an IVisitor we
>>>>> traverse the component tree and add every component to the target that
>>>>> has
>>>>> this interface.
>>>>>
>>>>> But during development we see that we get errors in the ajax debug log
>>>>> when
>>>>> these components have an invisible state. These components themselves
>>>>> can
>>>>> have this state but some of the times, the parent component is
>>>>> invisible. In
>>>>> these cases when such a hidden component is added to the
>>>>> AjaxRequestTarget
>>>>> we get an error in the ajax debug log.
>>>>>
>>>>> Adding the isVisible check before adding the component to the target
>>>>> could
>>>>> save us in some situations but not all (as it might get visible or
>>>>> invisible) at a later state.
>>>>> How can I prevent these components from being added to the
>>>>> AjaxRequestTarget? Or from the error being thrown? I had hoped that a
>>>>> component being in an invisible state (somewhere in the tree) wouldn't
>>>>> get
>>>>> rendered. It's not really a problem in a 'deployment' situation, but
>>>>> it's
>>>>> not 'nice' either.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thijs
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
>>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
>>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
Re: Add an invisible component to an AjaxRequestTarget target
Posted by Martin Grigorov <mg...@apache.org>.
Hi,
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 9:27 AM, Thijs <vo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Revisiting this.
> I'm still having some troubles with this.
>
> Say I have:
> Label a;
> add(a = Label(...)
> { onConfigure(){setVisible(*false due to some condition*)}});
> a.setOutputMarkupId(true);
>
> add(new AjaxLink(..){
> onClick(AjaxRequestTarget t){t.add(a);}
> };
>
> In this case the debug window will start calling mayhem as clearly label a
> is not on the page so it can't find the component to update.
>
> So my question is:
> Is it common practice to always do something like:
> AjaxLink(){
> onClick(AjaxRequestTarget t){
> if(a.isVisibleInHierarchy())
> t.add(a);
> }
> }
>
> Or should I always do:
> add(a = Label(...)
> { onConfigure(){setVisible(*false due to some condition*)}});
> a.setOutputMarkupId(true);
> showPhoto.setOutputMarkupPlaceholderTag(true);
I think you need : a.setOutputMarkupPlaceholderTag(true), not sure
what 'showPhoto' is.
setOutputMarkupPlaceholderTag(true) calls setOutputMarkupId(true) for
you, so there is no need to call both of them.
>
> Or could the AjaxRequestTarget be modified to do the isVisibleInHierarchy()
> before actually rendering the component?
This is possible but it will lead to more confusion. In this case your
component wont be modified at all and there wont be any indication. We
can add a WARN in the logs but my experience shows that not many
developers actually follow the logs.
>
> Thanks
>
>
> On 6-9-2012 22:47, Thijs Vonk wrote:
>>
>> OK thnx will give it a try
>>
>> On 6/9/12 22:39, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
>>>
>>> isVisibleInHierarchy() will make sure all parents are visible as well
>>>
>>> -igor
>>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Thijs Vonk <vo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> We have partial page updates all over a page. So panels and components
>>>> all
>>>> over the place that need Ajax updates.
>>>> We're using an Interface on those components and with an IVisitor we
>>>> traverse the component tree and add every component to the target that
>>>> has
>>>> this interface.
>>>>
>>>> But during development we see that we get errors in the ajax debug log
>>>> when
>>>> these components have an invisible state. These components themselves
>>>> can
>>>> have this state but some of the times, the parent component is
>>>> invisible. In
>>>> these cases when such a hidden component is added to the
>>>> AjaxRequestTarget
>>>> we get an error in the ajax debug log.
>>>>
>>>> Adding the isVisible check before adding the component to the target
>>>> could
>>>> save us in some situations but not all (as it might get visible or
>>>> invisible) at a later state.
>>>> How can I prevent these components from being added to the
>>>> AjaxRequestTarget? Or from the error being thrown? I had hoped that a
>>>> component being in an invisible state (somewhere in the tree) wouldn't
>>>> get
>>>> rendered. It's not really a problem in a 'deployment' situation, but
>>>> it's
>>>> not 'nice' either.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thijs
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
>>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
>>>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
>
--
Martin Grigorov
jWeekend
Training, Consulting, Development
http://jWeekend.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
Re: Add an invisible component to an AjaxRequestTarget target
Posted by Thijs <vo...@gmail.com>.
Revisiting this.
I'm still having some troubles with this.
Say I have:
Label a;
add(a = Label(...)
{ onConfigure(){setVisible(*false due to some condition*)}});
a.setOutputMarkupId(true);
add(new AjaxLink(..){
onClick(AjaxRequestTarget t){t.add(a);}
};
In this case the debug window will start calling mayhem as clearly label
a is not on the page so it can't find the component to update.
So my question is:
Is it common practice to always do something like:
AjaxLink(){
onClick(AjaxRequestTarget t){
if(a.isVisibleInHierarchy())
t.add(a);
}
}
Or should I always do:
add(a = Label(...)
{ onConfigure(){setVisible(*false due to some condition*)}});
a.setOutputMarkupId(true);
showPhoto.setOutputMarkupPlaceholderTag(true);
Or could the AjaxRequestTarget be modified to do the
isVisibleInHierarchy() before actually rendering the component?
Thanks
On 6-9-2012 22:47, Thijs Vonk wrote:
> OK thnx will give it a try
>
> On 6/9/12 22:39, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
>> isVisibleInHierarchy() will make sure all parents are visible as well
>>
>> -igor
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Thijs Vonk <vo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> We have partial page updates all over a page. So panels and
>>> components all
>>> over the place that need Ajax updates.
>>> We're using an Interface on those components and with an IVisitor we
>>> traverse the component tree and add every component to the target
>>> that has
>>> this interface.
>>>
>>> But during development we see that we get errors in the ajax debug
>>> log when
>>> these components have an invisible state. These components
>>> themselves can
>>> have this state but some of the times, the parent component is
>>> invisible. In
>>> these cases when such a hidden component is added to the
>>> AjaxRequestTarget
>>> we get an error in the ajax debug log.
>>>
>>> Adding the isVisible check before adding the component to the target
>>> could
>>> save us in some situations but not all (as it might get visible or
>>> invisible) at a later state.
>>> How can I prevent these components from being added to the
>>> AjaxRequestTarget? Or from the error being thrown? I had hoped that a
>>> component being in an invisible state (somewhere in the tree)
>>> wouldn't get
>>> rendered. It's not really a problem in a 'deployment' situation, but
>>> it's
>>> not 'nice' either.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thijs
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
>>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
Re: Add an invisible component to an AjaxRequestTarget target
Posted by Thijs Vonk <vo...@gmail.com>.
OK thnx will give it a try
On 6/9/12 22:39, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
> isVisibleInHierarchy() will make sure all parents are visible as well
>
> -igor
>
> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Thijs Vonk <vo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> We have partial page updates all over a page. So panels and components all
>> over the place that need Ajax updates.
>> We're using an Interface on those components and with an IVisitor we
>> traverse the component tree and add every component to the target that has
>> this interface.
>>
>> But during development we see that we get errors in the ajax debug log when
>> these components have an invisible state. These components themselves can
>> have this state but some of the times, the parent component is invisible. In
>> these cases when such a hidden component is added to the AjaxRequestTarget
>> we get an error in the ajax debug log.
>>
>> Adding the isVisible check before adding the component to the target could
>> save us in some situations but not all (as it might get visible or
>> invisible) at a later state.
>> How can I prevent these components from being added to the
>> AjaxRequestTarget? Or from the error being thrown? I had hoped that a
>> component being in an invisible state (somewhere in the tree) wouldn't get
>> rendered. It's not really a problem in a 'deployment' situation, but it's
>> not 'nice' either.
>>
>>
>> Thijs
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
Re: Add an invisible component to an AjaxRequestTarget target
Posted by Igor Vaynberg <ig...@gmail.com>.
isVisibleInHierarchy() will make sure all parents are visible as well
-igor
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Thijs Vonk <vo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We have partial page updates all over a page. So panels and components all
> over the place that need Ajax updates.
> We're using an Interface on those components and with an IVisitor we
> traverse the component tree and add every component to the target that has
> this interface.
>
> But during development we see that we get errors in the ajax debug log when
> these components have an invisible state. These components themselves can
> have this state but some of the times, the parent component is invisible. In
> these cases when such a hidden component is added to the AjaxRequestTarget
> we get an error in the ajax debug log.
>
> Adding the isVisible check before adding the component to the target could
> save us in some situations but not all (as it might get visible or
> invisible) at a later state.
> How can I prevent these components from being added to the
> AjaxRequestTarget? Or from the error being thrown? I had hoped that a
> component being in an invisible state (somewhere in the tree) wouldn't get
> rendered. It's not really a problem in a 'deployment' situation, but it's
> not 'nice' either.
>
>
> Thijs
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org