You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@wicket.apache.org by Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com> on 2015/02/22 17:27:04 UTC
[WICKET 7] InlineFrame's use of IPageProvider
While fixing a compilation error due to the removal of IPageLink, I
encountered that InlineFrame now uses IPageProvider and stores it in
an instance field.
Unfortunately, IPageProvider has no requirement to be Serializable and
the default implementation PageProvider is not serializable. This will
lead to serialization errors.
What shall we do? I don't think that PageProvider was ever intended as
a serializable concept so this can go a lot of ways...
Martijn
--
Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com
Re: [WICKET 7] InlineFrame's use of IPageProvider
Posted by Martin Grigorov <mg...@apache.org>.
+1
Although I don't expect anyone trying to implement custom IPageProvider.
If it was that easy we would simplify our own long time ago:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-4201
On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 8:13 PM, Martijn Dashorst <
martijn.dashorst@gmail.com> wrote:
> What about this construct:
>
> public <P extends IPageProvider & Serializable> InlineFrame(final
> String id, P p)
> {
> super(id);
> pageProvider = p;
> }
>
> Would that be something (works in Java 8)? It would solve the problem
> of InlineFrame, force users to at least use a serializable
> IPageProvider implementation.
>
> Martijn
>
> On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 7:02 PM, Tobias Soloschenko
> <to...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > So,
> >
> > based on further researches there is a very big impact if IPageProvider
> is
> > going to be IClusterable in general. I would recommend to keep it the
> way it
> > is currently implemented. If users want to build their own PageProvider
> and
> > want to use InlineFrame should build their PageProvider to be
> IClusterable,
> > but we should not define it in general.
> >
> > kind regards
> >
> > Tobias
> >
> > ------------
> >
> > Infact that the InlineFrame uses the Interface of IPageProvider and users
> > may implement their own PageProvider I would say yes - so that the
> > InlineFrame also works with other PageProviders we have to move the
> > ICusterable to IPageProvider. I checked out the other places
> IPageProvider
> > is used:
> >
> > 1. org.apache.wicket.core.request.handler.PageProvider
> > 2. org.apache.wicket.core.request.handler.PageAndComponentProvider
> > through interface
> > org.apache.wicket.core.request.handler.IPageAndComponentProvider
> >
> > The only thing which might be a problem then is that
> > org.apache.wicket.request.component.IRequestableComponent of the
> > PageAndComponentProvider is not serializable and this would lead to a
> > NotSerializableException, because several RequestHandler is using it.
> >
> > kind regards
> >
> > Tobias
> >
> > Am 22.02.15 um 18:07 schrieb Martijn Dashorst:
> >>
> >> Ok,
> >>
> >>
> >> But shouldn't IPageProvider rather extend IClusterable? One can
> >> provide a custom IPageProvider implementation without having it be
> >> serializable.
> >>
> >> Martijn
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 5:54 PM, Tobias Soloschenko
> >> <to...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> here is the ticket in which we discussed it.
> >>>
> >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-5828
> >>>
> >>> kind regards
> >>>
> >>> Tobias
> >>>
> >>>> Am 22.02.2015 um 17:31 schrieb Martin Grigorov <mgrigorov@apache.org
> >:
> >>>>
> >>>> This has been fixed recently in master. Right after you've cut M5
> >>>> On Feb 22, 2015 6:29 PM, "Martijn Dashorst" <
> martijn.dashorst@gmail.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> While fixing a compilation error due to the removal of IPageLink, I
> >>>>> encountered that InlineFrame now uses IPageProvider and stores it in
> >>>>> an instance field.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Unfortunately, IPageProvider has no requirement to be Serializable
> and
> >>>>> the default implementation PageProvider is not serializable. This
> will
> >>>>> lead to serialization errors.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What shall we do? I don't think that PageProvider was ever intended
> as
> >>>>> a serializable concept so this can go a lot of ways...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Martijn
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best:
> http://wicketinaction.com
> >>>>>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com
>
Re: [WICKET 7] InlineFrame's use of IPageProvider
Posted by Tobias Soloschenko <to...@googlemail.com>.
Hi Martijn,
yes! In my opinion this is perfectly ok.
kind regards
Tobias
Am 22.02.15 um 19:13 schrieb Martijn Dashorst:
> What about this construct:
>
> public <P extends IPageProvider & Serializable> InlineFrame(final
> String id, P p)
> {
> super(id);
> pageProvider = p;
> }
>
> Would that be something (works in Java 8)? It would solve the problem
> of InlineFrame, force users to at least use a serializable
> IPageProvider implementation.
>
> Martijn
>
> On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 7:02 PM, Tobias Soloschenko
> <to...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> So,
>>
>> based on further researches there is a very big impact if IPageProvider is
>> going to be IClusterable in general. I would recommend to keep it the way it
>> is currently implemented. If users want to build their own PageProvider and
>> want to use InlineFrame should build their PageProvider to be IClusterable,
>> but we should not define it in general.
>>
>> kind regards
>>
>> Tobias
>>
>> ------------
>>
>> Infact that the InlineFrame uses the Interface of IPageProvider and users
>> may implement their own PageProvider I would say yes - so that the
>> InlineFrame also works with other PageProviders we have to move the
>> ICusterable to IPageProvider. I checked out the other places IPageProvider
>> is used:
>>
>> 1. org.apache.wicket.core.request.handler.PageProvider
>> 2. org.apache.wicket.core.request.handler.PageAndComponentProvider
>> through interface
>> org.apache.wicket.core.request.handler.IPageAndComponentProvider
>>
>> The only thing which might be a problem then is that
>> org.apache.wicket.request.component.IRequestableComponent of the
>> PageAndComponentProvider is not serializable and this would lead to a
>> NotSerializableException, because several RequestHandler is using it.
>>
>> kind regards
>>
>> Tobias
>>
>> Am 22.02.15 um 18:07 schrieb Martijn Dashorst:
>>> Ok,
>>>
>>>
>>> But shouldn't IPageProvider rather extend IClusterable? One can
>>> provide a custom IPageProvider implementation without having it be
>>> serializable.
>>>
>>> Martijn
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 5:54 PM, Tobias Soloschenko
>>> <to...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> here is the ticket in which we discussed it.
>>>>
>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-5828
>>>>
>>>> kind regards
>>>>
>>>> Tobias
>>>>
>>>>> Am 22.02.2015 um 17:31 schrieb Martin Grigorov <mg...@apache.org>:
>>>>>
>>>>> This has been fixed recently in master. Right after you've cut M5
>>>>> On Feb 22, 2015 6:29 PM, "Martijn Dashorst" <ma...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> While fixing a compilation error due to the removal of IPageLink, I
>>>>>> encountered that InlineFrame now uses IPageProvider and stores it in
>>>>>> an instance field.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unfortunately, IPageProvider has no requirement to be Serializable and
>>>>>> the default implementation PageProvider is not serializable. This will
>>>>>> lead to serialization errors.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What shall we do? I don't think that PageProvider was ever intended as
>>>>>> a serializable concept so this can go a lot of ways...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Martijn
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com
>>>>>>
>>>
>
>
Re: [WICKET 7] InlineFrame's use of IPageProvider
Posted by Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com>.
What about this construct:
public <P extends IPageProvider & Serializable> InlineFrame(final
String id, P p)
{
super(id);
pageProvider = p;
}
Would that be something (works in Java 8)? It would solve the problem
of InlineFrame, force users to at least use a serializable
IPageProvider implementation.
Martijn
On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 7:02 PM, Tobias Soloschenko
<to...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> So,
>
> based on further researches there is a very big impact if IPageProvider is
> going to be IClusterable in general. I would recommend to keep it the way it
> is currently implemented. If users want to build their own PageProvider and
> want to use InlineFrame should build their PageProvider to be IClusterable,
> but we should not define it in general.
>
> kind regards
>
> Tobias
>
> ------------
>
> Infact that the InlineFrame uses the Interface of IPageProvider and users
> may implement their own PageProvider I would say yes - so that the
> InlineFrame also works with other PageProviders we have to move the
> ICusterable to IPageProvider. I checked out the other places IPageProvider
> is used:
>
> 1. org.apache.wicket.core.request.handler.PageProvider
> 2. org.apache.wicket.core.request.handler.PageAndComponentProvider
> through interface
> org.apache.wicket.core.request.handler.IPageAndComponentProvider
>
> The only thing which might be a problem then is that
> org.apache.wicket.request.component.IRequestableComponent of the
> PageAndComponentProvider is not serializable and this would lead to a
> NotSerializableException, because several RequestHandler is using it.
>
> kind regards
>
> Tobias
>
> Am 22.02.15 um 18:07 schrieb Martijn Dashorst:
>>
>> Ok,
>>
>>
>> But shouldn't IPageProvider rather extend IClusterable? One can
>> provide a custom IPageProvider implementation without having it be
>> serializable.
>>
>> Martijn
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 5:54 PM, Tobias Soloschenko
>> <to...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> here is the ticket in which we discussed it.
>>>
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-5828
>>>
>>> kind regards
>>>
>>> Tobias
>>>
>>>> Am 22.02.2015 um 17:31 schrieb Martin Grigorov <mg...@apache.org>:
>>>>
>>>> This has been fixed recently in master. Right after you've cut M5
>>>> On Feb 22, 2015 6:29 PM, "Martijn Dashorst" <ma...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> While fixing a compilation error due to the removal of IPageLink, I
>>>>> encountered that InlineFrame now uses IPageProvider and stores it in
>>>>> an instance field.
>>>>>
>>>>> Unfortunately, IPageProvider has no requirement to be Serializable and
>>>>> the default implementation PageProvider is not serializable. This will
>>>>> lead to serialization errors.
>>>>>
>>>>> What shall we do? I don't think that PageProvider was ever intended as
>>>>> a serializable concept so this can go a lot of ways...
>>>>>
>>>>> Martijn
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com
>>>>>
>>
>>
>
--
Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com
Re: [WICKET 7] InlineFrame's use of IPageProvider
Posted by Tobias Soloschenko <to...@googlemail.com>.
So,
based on further researches there is a very big impact if IPageProvider
is going to be IClusterable in general. I would recommend to keep it the
way it is currently implemented. If users want to build their own
PageProvider and want to use InlineFrame should build their PageProvider
to be IClusterable, but we should not define it in general.
kind regards
Tobias
------------
Infact that the InlineFrame uses the Interface of IPageProvider and
users may implement their own PageProvider I would say yes - so that the
InlineFrame also works with other PageProviders we have to move the
ICusterable to IPageProvider. I checked out the other places
IPageProvider is used:
1. org.apache.wicket.core.request.handler.PageProvider
2. org.apache.wicket.core.request.handler.PageAndComponentProvider
through interface
org.apache.wicket.core.request.handler.IPageAndComponentProvider
The only thing which might be a problem then is that
org.apache.wicket.request.component.IRequestableComponent of the
PageAndComponentProvider is not serializable and this would lead to a
NotSerializableException, because several RequestHandler is using it.
kind regards
Tobias
Am 22.02.15 um 18:07 schrieb Martijn Dashorst:
> Ok,
>
> But shouldn't IPageProvider rather extend IClusterable? One can
> provide a custom IPageProvider implementation without having it be
> serializable.
>
> Martijn
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 5:54 PM, Tobias Soloschenko
> <to...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> here is the ticket in which we discussed it.
>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-5828
>>
>> kind regards
>>
>> Tobias
>>
>>> Am 22.02.2015 um 17:31 schrieb Martin Grigorov <mg...@apache.org>:
>>>
>>> This has been fixed recently in master. Right after you've cut M5
>>> On Feb 22, 2015 6:29 PM, "Martijn Dashorst" <ma...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> While fixing a compilation error due to the removal of IPageLink, I
>>>> encountered that InlineFrame now uses IPageProvider and stores it in
>>>> an instance field.
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately, IPageProvider has no requirement to be Serializable and
>>>> the default implementation PageProvider is not serializable. This will
>>>> lead to serialization errors.
>>>>
>>>> What shall we do? I don't think that PageProvider was ever intended as
>>>> a serializable concept so this can go a lot of ways...
>>>>
>>>> Martijn
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com
>>>>
>
>
Re: [WICKET 7] InlineFrame's use of IPageProvider
Posted by Tobias Soloschenko <to...@googlemail.com>.
Infact that the InlineFrame uses the Interface of IPageProvider and
users may implement their own PageProvider I would say yes - so that the
InlineFrame also works with other PageProviders we have to move the
ICusterable to IPageProvider. I checked out the other places
IPageProvider is used:
1. org.apache.wicket.core.request.handler.PageProvider
2. org.apache.wicket.core.request.handler.PageAndComponentProvider
through interface
org.apache.wicket.core.request.handler.IPageAndComponentProvider
The only thing which might be a problem then is that
org.apache.wicket.request.component.IRequestableComponent of the
PageAndComponentProvider is not serializable and this would lead to a
NotSerializableException, because several RequestHandler is using it.
kind regards
Tobias
Am 22.02.15 um 18:07 schrieb Martijn Dashorst:
> Ok,
>
> But shouldn't IPageProvider rather extend IClusterable? One can
> provide a custom IPageProvider implementation without having it be
> serializable.
>
> Martijn
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 5:54 PM, Tobias Soloschenko
> <to...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> here is the ticket in which we discussed it.
>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-5828
>>
>> kind regards
>>
>> Tobias
>>
>>> Am 22.02.2015 um 17:31 schrieb Martin Grigorov <mg...@apache.org>:
>>>
>>> This has been fixed recently in master. Right after you've cut M5
>>> On Feb 22, 2015 6:29 PM, "Martijn Dashorst" <ma...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> While fixing a compilation error due to the removal of IPageLink, I
>>>> encountered that InlineFrame now uses IPageProvider and stores it in
>>>> an instance field.
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately, IPageProvider has no requirement to be Serializable and
>>>> the default implementation PageProvider is not serializable. This will
>>>> lead to serialization errors.
>>>>
>>>> What shall we do? I don't think that PageProvider was ever intended as
>>>> a serializable concept so this can go a lot of ways...
>>>>
>>>> Martijn
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com
>>>>
>
>
Re: [WICKET 7] InlineFrame's use of IPageProvider
Posted by Martin Grigorov <mg...@apache.org>.
Correct! :-)
Martin Grigorov
Wicket Training and Consulting
https://twitter.com/mtgrigorov
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 12:36 PM, Martijn Dashorst <
martijn.dashorst@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 9:27 PM, Martin Grigorov <mg...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > Martijn,
> >
> > quick quiz: do you know/remember what IClusterable was created for ? :-)
>
> Yup: for Terracotta integration to make it easier to identify objects
> that should be clustered.
>
> Martijn
>
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 7:07 PM, Martijn Dashorst <
> > martijn.dashorst@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Ok,
> >>
> >> But shouldn't IPageProvider rather extend IClusterable? One can
> >> provide a custom IPageProvider implementation without having it be
> >> serializable.
> >>
> >> Martijn
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 5:54 PM, Tobias Soloschenko
> >> <to...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> >> > here is the ticket in which we discussed it.
> >> >
> >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-5828
> >> >
> >> > kind regards
> >> >
> >> > Tobias
> >> >
> >> >> Am 22.02.2015 um 17:31 schrieb Martin Grigorov <mgrigorov@apache.org
> >:
> >> >>
> >> >> This has been fixed recently in master. Right after you've cut M5
> >> >> On Feb 22, 2015 6:29 PM, "Martijn Dashorst" <
> martijn.dashorst@gmail.com
> >> >
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> While fixing a compilation error due to the removal of IPageLink, I
> >> >>> encountered that InlineFrame now uses IPageProvider and stores it in
> >> >>> an instance field.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Unfortunately, IPageProvider has no requirement to be Serializable
> and
> >> >>> the default implementation PageProvider is not serializable. This
> will
> >> >>> lead to serialization errors.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> What shall we do? I don't think that PageProvider was ever intended
> as
> >> >>> a serializable concept so this can go a lot of ways...
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Martijn
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> --
> >> >>> Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best:
> http://wicketinaction.com
> >> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com
> >>
>
>
>
> --
> Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com
>
Re: [WICKET 7] InlineFrame's use of IPageProvider
Posted by Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com>.
On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 9:27 PM, Martin Grigorov <mg...@apache.org> wrote:
> Martijn,
>
> quick quiz: do you know/remember what IClusterable was created for ? :-)
Yup: for Terracotta integration to make it easier to identify objects
that should be clustered.
Martijn
>
> On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 7:07 PM, Martijn Dashorst <
> martijn.dashorst@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Ok,
>>
>> But shouldn't IPageProvider rather extend IClusterable? One can
>> provide a custom IPageProvider implementation without having it be
>> serializable.
>>
>> Martijn
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 5:54 PM, Tobias Soloschenko
>> <to...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > here is the ticket in which we discussed it.
>> >
>> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-5828
>> >
>> > kind regards
>> >
>> > Tobias
>> >
>> >> Am 22.02.2015 um 17:31 schrieb Martin Grigorov <mg...@apache.org>:
>> >>
>> >> This has been fixed recently in master. Right after you've cut M5
>> >> On Feb 22, 2015 6:29 PM, "Martijn Dashorst" <martijn.dashorst@gmail.com
>> >
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> While fixing a compilation error due to the removal of IPageLink, I
>> >>> encountered that InlineFrame now uses IPageProvider and stores it in
>> >>> an instance field.
>> >>>
>> >>> Unfortunately, IPageProvider has no requirement to be Serializable and
>> >>> the default implementation PageProvider is not serializable. This will
>> >>> lead to serialization errors.
>> >>>
>> >>> What shall we do? I don't think that PageProvider was ever intended as
>> >>> a serializable concept so this can go a lot of ways...
>> >>>
>> >>> Martijn
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com
>> >>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com
>>
--
Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com
Re: [WICKET 7] InlineFrame's use of IPageProvider
Posted by Martin Grigorov <mg...@apache.org>.
Martijn,
quick quiz: do you know/remember what IClusterable was created for ? :-)
On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 7:07 PM, Martijn Dashorst <
martijn.dashorst@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ok,
>
> But shouldn't IPageProvider rather extend IClusterable? One can
> provide a custom IPageProvider implementation without having it be
> serializable.
>
> Martijn
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 5:54 PM, Tobias Soloschenko
> <to...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > here is the ticket in which we discussed it.
> >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-5828
> >
> > kind regards
> >
> > Tobias
> >
> >> Am 22.02.2015 um 17:31 schrieb Martin Grigorov <mg...@apache.org>:
> >>
> >> This has been fixed recently in master. Right after you've cut M5
> >> On Feb 22, 2015 6:29 PM, "Martijn Dashorst" <martijn.dashorst@gmail.com
> >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> While fixing a compilation error due to the removal of IPageLink, I
> >>> encountered that InlineFrame now uses IPageProvider and stores it in
> >>> an instance field.
> >>>
> >>> Unfortunately, IPageProvider has no requirement to be Serializable and
> >>> the default implementation PageProvider is not serializable. This will
> >>> lead to serialization errors.
> >>>
> >>> What shall we do? I don't think that PageProvider was ever intended as
> >>> a serializable concept so this can go a lot of ways...
> >>>
> >>> Martijn
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com
> >>>
>
>
>
> --
> Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com
>
Re: [WICKET 7] InlineFrame's use of IPageProvider
Posted by Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com>.
Ok,
But shouldn't IPageProvider rather extend IClusterable? One can
provide a custom IPageProvider implementation without having it be
serializable.
Martijn
On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 5:54 PM, Tobias Soloschenko
<to...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> here is the ticket in which we discussed it.
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-5828
>
> kind regards
>
> Tobias
>
>> Am 22.02.2015 um 17:31 schrieb Martin Grigorov <mg...@apache.org>:
>>
>> This has been fixed recently in master. Right after you've cut M5
>> On Feb 22, 2015 6:29 PM, "Martijn Dashorst" <ma...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> While fixing a compilation error due to the removal of IPageLink, I
>>> encountered that InlineFrame now uses IPageProvider and stores it in
>>> an instance field.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, IPageProvider has no requirement to be Serializable and
>>> the default implementation PageProvider is not serializable. This will
>>> lead to serialization errors.
>>>
>>> What shall we do? I don't think that PageProvider was ever intended as
>>> a serializable concept so this can go a lot of ways...
>>>
>>> Martijn
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com
>>>
--
Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com
Re: [WICKET 7] InlineFrame's use of IPageProvider
Posted by Tobias Soloschenko <to...@googlemail.com>.
Hi,
here is the ticket in which we discussed it.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-5828
kind regards
Tobias
> Am 22.02.2015 um 17:31 schrieb Martin Grigorov <mg...@apache.org>:
>
> This has been fixed recently in master. Right after you've cut M5
> On Feb 22, 2015 6:29 PM, "Martijn Dashorst" <ma...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> While fixing a compilation error due to the removal of IPageLink, I
>> encountered that InlineFrame now uses IPageProvider and stores it in
>> an instance field.
>>
>> Unfortunately, IPageProvider has no requirement to be Serializable and
>> the default implementation PageProvider is not serializable. This will
>> lead to serialization errors.
>>
>> What shall we do? I don't think that PageProvider was ever intended as
>> a serializable concept so this can go a lot of ways...
>>
>> Martijn
>>
>>
>> --
>> Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com
>>
Re: [WICKET 7] InlineFrame's use of IPageProvider
Posted by Martin Grigorov <mg...@apache.org>.
This has been fixed recently in master. Right after you've cut M5
On Feb 22, 2015 6:29 PM, "Martijn Dashorst" <ma...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> While fixing a compilation error due to the removal of IPageLink, I
> encountered that InlineFrame now uses IPageProvider and stores it in
> an instance field.
>
> Unfortunately, IPageProvider has no requirement to be Serializable and
> the default implementation PageProvider is not serializable. This will
> lead to serialization errors.
>
> What shall we do? I don't think that PageProvider was ever intended as
> a serializable concept so this can go a lot of ways...
>
> Martijn
>
>
> --
> Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com
>