You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@wicket.apache.org by Andrea Del Bene <an...@gmail.com> on 2011/11/20 17:46:57 UTC
New wicket-ajax and bind() function.
The new implementation of wicket-ajax (based on JQuery) does not check
anymore if bind() function is defined. This causes Internet Explorer
(from 6 to 8) not to work with some components like AjaxLink.
Re: New wicket-ajax and bind() function.
Posted by Andrea Del Bene <an...@gmail.com>.
I think it is a good solution, and I agree we should not use any
library-dependent code on server side.
> Thanks Andrea,
>
> I have noticed it too.
> At one side we don't want to polute native JavaScript objects, like
> Funtion.prototype.
> On the other side I don't want to use any jQuery specific code at the
> server side. The current problem is that we have some hardcoded usages
> of ".bind(this)" in the .java code.
>
> I'll introduce Wicket#inCtx() in the JavaScript API that will delegate
> to jQuery.proxy and this will solve the problem.
>
> Any better solutions ?
>
> On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 6:46 PM, Andrea Del Bene<an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The new implementation of wicket-ajax (based on JQuery) does not check
>> anymore if bind() function is defined. This causes Internet Explorer (from
>> 6 to 8) not to work with some components like AjaxLink.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Re: New wicket-ajax and bind() function.
Posted by Martin Grigorov <mg...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 9:59 AM, Martin Grigorov <mg...@apache.org> wrote:
> Thanks Andrea,
>
> I have noticed it too.
> At one side we don't want to polute native JavaScript objects, like
> Funtion.prototype.
> On the other side I don't want to use any jQuery specific code at the
> server side. The current problem is that we have some hardcoded usages
> of ".bind(this)" in the .java code.
>
> I'll introduce Wicket#inCtx() in the JavaScript API that will delegate
> to jQuery.proxy and this will solve the problem.
Implemented with r1204424.
>
> Any better solutions ?
>
> On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 6:46 PM, Andrea Del Bene <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The new implementation of wicket-ajax (based on JQuery) does not check
>> anymore if bind() function is defined. This causes Internet Explorer (from
>> 6 to 8) not to work with some components like AjaxLink.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Martin Grigorov
> jWeekend
> Training, Consulting, Development
> http://jWeekend.com
>
--
Martin Grigorov
jWeekend
Training, Consulting, Development
http://jWeekend.com
Re: New wicket-ajax and bind() function.
Posted by Martin Grigorov <mg...@apache.org>.
I'm fine
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 10:15 PM, Igor Vaynberg <ig...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why not call it wicket.bind since most people are probably familiar with
> that already...
>
> -igor
> On Nov 20, 2011 11:59 PM, "Martin Grigorov" <mg...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Andrea,
>>
>> I have noticed it too.
>> At one side we don't want to polute native JavaScript objects, like
>> Funtion.prototype.
>> On the other side I don't want to use any jQuery specific code at the
>> server side. The current problem is that we have some hardcoded usages
>> of ".bind(this)" in the .java code.
>>
>> I'll introduce Wicket#inCtx() in the JavaScript API that will delegate
>> to jQuery.proxy and this will solve the problem.
>>
>> Any better solutions ?
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 6:46 PM, Andrea Del Bene <an...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > The new implementation of wicket-ajax (based on JQuery) does not check
>> > anymore if bind() function is defined. This causes Internet Explorer
>> (from
>> > 6 to 8) not to work with some components like AjaxLink.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Martin Grigorov
>> jWeekend
>> Training, Consulting, Development
>> http://jWeekend.com
>>
>
--
Martin Grigorov
jWeekend
Training, Consulting, Development
http://jWeekend.com
Re: New wicket-ajax and bind() function.
Posted by Igor Vaynberg <ig...@gmail.com>.
Why not call it wicket.bind since most people are probably familiar with
that already...
-igor
On Nov 20, 2011 11:59 PM, "Martin Grigorov" <mg...@apache.org> wrote:
> Thanks Andrea,
>
> I have noticed it too.
> At one side we don't want to polute native JavaScript objects, like
> Funtion.prototype.
> On the other side I don't want to use any jQuery specific code at the
> server side. The current problem is that we have some hardcoded usages
> of ".bind(this)" in the .java code.
>
> I'll introduce Wicket#inCtx() in the JavaScript API that will delegate
> to jQuery.proxy and this will solve the problem.
>
> Any better solutions ?
>
> On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 6:46 PM, Andrea Del Bene <an...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > The new implementation of wicket-ajax (based on JQuery) does not check
> > anymore if bind() function is defined. This causes Internet Explorer
> (from
> > 6 to 8) not to work with some components like AjaxLink.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Martin Grigorov
> jWeekend
> Training, Consulting, Development
> http://jWeekend.com
>
Re: New wicket-ajax and bind() function.
Posted by Martin Grigorov <mg...@apache.org>.
Thanks Andrea,
I have noticed it too.
At one side we don't want to polute native JavaScript objects, like
Funtion.prototype.
On the other side I don't want to use any jQuery specific code at the
server side. The current problem is that we have some hardcoded usages
of ".bind(this)" in the .java code.
I'll introduce Wicket#inCtx() in the JavaScript API that will delegate
to jQuery.proxy and this will solve the problem.
Any better solutions ?
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 6:46 PM, Andrea Del Bene <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The new implementation of wicket-ajax (based on JQuery) does not check
> anymore if bind() function is defined. This causes Internet Explorer (from
> 6 to 8) not to work with some components like AjaxLink.
>
>
>
--
Martin Grigorov
jWeekend
Training, Consulting, Development
http://jWeekend.com