You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@wicket.apache.org by Bertrand Guay-Paquet <be...@step.polymtl.ca> on 2012/04/04 18:31:34 UTC
Re: What real life scenario calls for page ID?
Hi,
Is there a JIRA issue tracking this "render wrong page based on page
version" problem? I'm very interested in this issue since sharing links
to stateful pages containing a page version is essentially broken.
Regards,
Bertrand
On 20/03/2012 12:45 PM, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 8:52 AM, Martin Grigorov<mg...@apache.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 5:42 PM, Igor Vaynberg<ig...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 8:28 AM, Martin Grigorov<mg...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 5:20 PM, Igor Vaynberg<ig...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 1:07 AM, Martin Grigorov<mg...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 12:55 AM, Igor Vaynberg<ig...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> indeed. we should check that the page pointed to by the id maps back
>>>>>>> to the mount, and create a new instance based on the mount if it
>>>>>>> doesnt. jira please.
>>>>>> This is already the case, no need of a ticket for this. If there is no
>>>>>> ?5 then Wicket creates ?0 and shows it.
>>>>> this is not what i was talking about...
>>>>>
>>>>>> The "problem" Pointbreak actually mean is that userA may have opened
>>>>>> ?5 in his session, copy the url and give it to
>>>>>> userB, but userB also already have its own session and by chance he
>>>>>> also had reached ?5 and these two ?5s are
>>>>>> different because they may have different states for both users.
>>>>> not only are ?5 different, but they are entirely different pages.
>>>>>
>>>>> so user A goes to /foo, we redirect to /foo?0, they click around and
>>>>> end up on /foo?2
>>>>> user B goes to /bar, we redirect to /bar?0, they click around and end
>>>>> up on /bar?7
>>>>>
>>>>> now user A emails user B the /foo?2 link. when user B hits that link
>>>>> they end up going to a previous version of their *bar* page instead of
>>>>> some instance of /foo because we do not check the mount vs the page
>>>>> id, and whats worse we keep the mount in the url even though we are
>>>>> displaying a page that is not mounted.
>>>> Ouch!
>>>>
>>>>> i guess this is why in 1.4 we dropped the mount from nonbookmarkable urls...
>>>> I hope you don't mean that we have to redirect to wicket/page?0 from
>>>> the bookmarkable url that the user requested.
>>> no. we should redirect to wicket/page?x when the user navigates away
>>> from the mounted page.
>>>
>>> so i go to /bar which is BarPage and end up on /bar?0. click a link
>>> that does something to BarPage, so end up on /bar?1. click a link that
>>> takes me to FooPage, at this point since the page does not match the
>>> mount i should go to /wicket/page?3
>> Currently it works just as you described it. Or I don't understand you well.
>> A quickstart will make it more clear :-)
>>
>> My "ouch" was for something else - userA sends foo?5, but userB's ?5
>> is for BarPage and current PageProvider will silently return BarPage's
>> version5. It wont be FooPage!
> hrm. yes. in a cleanroom quickstart that is indeed how it works. in
> our prod app, for some reason, it just shows the other page on the old
> page's mount. i will have to dig into that in our code base.
>
> the quickstart does show what you have described above (showing the
> old version of the page instead of creating a new one), but it also
> does another interesting. when it redirects to the incorrect version
> of the other page it also uses wicket/bookmarkable url instead of the
> mount.
>
> so when i am on /bar?4 and change 4 to 2 which is a version of FooPage
> mounted on /foo i dont go to /foo?5 like i should, instead i go to
> /wicket/bookmarkable/FooPage?2
>
> -igor
>
>
>
>>> -igor
>>>
>>>> It'd be better if we check the type of the stored page against the
>>>> type of the page that is mounted at this "bookmarkable" url and throw
>>>> PageExpiredException if they don't match.
>>>>
>>>>> -igor
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> The confusing part here is "bookmarkable". Now imagine that there is
>>>>>> no ?pageId in the url. userA clicks several Ajax links to get to
>>>>>> version5 of that page and then copy/paste the url but userB will see
>>>>>> the initial state of the page, not version5 that userA actually meant.
>>>>>> So it seems only ?0 is actually "bookmarkable" for stateful pages.
>>>>>> Only in this case both users will see the same content (if there is no
>>>>>> special logic for user permissions involved).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If userA wants to fully share his page with userB then he has to share
>>>>>> his session too, i.e. both ?5 and jessionid= has to be in the pasted
>>>>>> url. I don't recomment this!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ?5 helps when the user refreshes the page in his current session. In
>>>>>> this case he will see the same content as before the refresh. In 1.4
>>>>>> he'd see the initial state of the page and will loose any state that
>>>>>> is not persisted so far.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -igor
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Pointbreak
>>>>>>> <po...@ml1.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> It's a problem when users bookmark it. Because ...?5 this session is an
>>>>>>>> entirely other page as ...?5 in another session tomorrow.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012, at 11:53, Girts Ziemelis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2012-03-19 02:46, Paolo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> I support you! I implemented class NoVersionMount thanks to pointbreak
>>>>>>>>>> in my MainApplication. And It will be my template for future app. But
>>>>>>>>>> to do it, I needed to understood the problem, check on google, read a
>>>>>>>>>> lot of pages, without found a solution, so post the question here, and
>>>>>>>>>> after 3 post, got a right reply for me. Why an wicket user have to do
>>>>>>>>>> all this???? Why not, wicket use the NoVersionMount as default Mount?
>>>>>>>>>> Like in wicket 1.4. And implement an VersionMount as an alternative
>>>>>>>>>> for developer?
>>>>>>>>> I actually like this change so far. I can finally tell, that my page is
>>>>>>>>> stetefull just by looking at the link and ask myself question - if I
>>>>>>>>> really care so much about the clean link for this page, may be it should
>>>>>>>>> be stateless in a first place?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And why is ?0 such a big problem? It does not cause problems sending
>>>>>>>>> links.
>>>>>>>>> Is there any real proof of google indexing problems so far?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 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
>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: What real life scenario calls for page ID?
Posted by MattyDE <uf...@gmail.com>.
I really enjoyed reading this conversation. But still one question is open
for me right know:
How should i able to test my site effectively (while developing) when F5
always shows the oldstate (also when the tomcat has been restarted) ... is
there any workaround to disable this "Behavoir" for the dev-phase?
Thanks in Advance :)
--
View this message in context: http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/I-don-t-want-url-page-count-parameter-localhost-8080-context-0-tp4481510p4653384.html
Sent from the Users forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
Re: What real life scenario calls for page ID?
Posted by Bertrand Guay-Paquet <be...@step.polymtl.ca>.
I reproduced the issue in the quickstart attached to WICKET-4488.
On 04/04/2012 3:44 PM, Martin Grigorov wrote:
> Hi Bertrand,
>
> Did you verify that ? If yes and you have a quickstart then create a ticket.
> There are no tickets from this discussion so far.
>
> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 6:31 PM, Bertrand Guay-Paquet
> <be...@step.polymtl.ca> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Is there a JIRA issue tracking this "render wrong page based on page
>> version" problem? I'm very interested in this issue since sharing links to
>> stateful pages containing a page version is essentially broken.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Bertrand
>>
>>
>> On 20/03/2012 12:45 PM, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 8:52 AM, Martin Grigorov<mg...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 5:42 PM, Igor Vaynberg<ig...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 8:28 AM, Martin Grigorov<mg...@apache.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 5:20 PM, Igor Vaynberg<ig...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 1:07 AM, Martin Grigorov<mg...@apache.org>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 12:55 AM, Igor
>>>>>>>> Vaynberg<ig...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> indeed. we should check that the page pointed to by the id maps back
>>>>>>>>> to the mount, and create a new instance based on the mount if it
>>>>>>>>> doesnt. jira please.
>>>>>>>> This is already the case, no need of a ticket for this. If there is
>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>> ?5 then Wicket creates ?0 and shows it.
>>>>>>> this is not what i was talking about...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The "problem" Pointbreak actually mean is that userA may have opened
>>>>>>>> ?5 in his session, copy the url and give it to
>>>>>>>> userB, but userB also already have its own session and by chance he
>>>>>>>> also had reached ?5 and these two ?5s are
>>>>>>>> different because they may have different states for both users.
>>>>>>> not only are ?5 different, but they are entirely different pages.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> so user A goes to /foo, we redirect to /foo?0, they click around and
>>>>>>> end up on /foo?2
>>>>>>> user B goes to /bar, we redirect to /bar?0, they click around and end
>>>>>>> up on /bar?7
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> now user A emails user B the /foo?2 link. when user B hits that link
>>>>>>> they end up going to a previous version of their *bar* page instead of
>>>>>>> some instance of /foo because we do not check the mount vs the page
>>>>>>> id, and whats worse we keep the mount in the url even though we are
>>>>>>> displaying a page that is not mounted.
>>>>>> Ouch!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> i guess this is why in 1.4 we dropped the mount from nonbookmarkable
>>>>>>> urls...
>>>>>> I hope you don't mean that we have to redirect to wicket/page?0 from
>>>>>> the bookmarkable url that the user requested.
>>>>> no. we should redirect to wicket/page?x when the user navigates away
>>>>> from the mounted page.
>>>>>
>>>>> so i go to /bar which is BarPage and end up on /bar?0. click a link
>>>>> that does something to BarPage, so end up on /bar?1. click a link that
>>>>> takes me to FooPage, at this point since the page does not match the
>>>>> mount i should go to /wicket/page?3
>>>> Currently it works just as you described it. Or I don't understand you
>>>> well.
>>>> A quickstart will make it more clear :-)
>>>>
>>>> My "ouch" was for something else - userA sends foo?5, but userB's ?5
>>>> is for BarPage and current PageProvider will silently return BarPage's
>>>> version5. It wont be FooPage!
>>> hrm. yes. in a cleanroom quickstart that is indeed how it works. in
>>> our prod app, for some reason, it just shows the other page on the old
>>> page's mount. i will have to dig into that in our code base.
>>>
>>> the quickstart does show what you have described above (showing the
>>> old version of the page instead of creating a new one), but it also
>>> does another interesting. when it redirects to the incorrect version
>>> of the other page it also uses wicket/bookmarkable url instead of the
>>> mount.
>>>
>>> so when i am on /bar?4 and change 4 to 2 which is a version of FooPage
>>> mounted on /foo i dont go to /foo?5 like i should, instead i go to
>>> /wicket/bookmarkable/FooPage?2
>>>
>>> -igor
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> -igor
>>>>>
>>>>>> It'd be better if we check the type of the stored page against the
>>>>>> type of the page that is mounted at this "bookmarkable" url and throw
>>>>>> PageExpiredException if they don't match.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -igor
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The confusing part here is "bookmarkable". Now imagine that there is
>>>>>>>> no ?pageId in the url. userA clicks several Ajax links to get to
>>>>>>>> version5 of that page and then copy/paste the url but userB will see
>>>>>>>> the initial state of the page, not version5 that userA actually
>>>>>>>> meant.
>>>>>>>> So it seems only ?0 is actually "bookmarkable" for stateful pages.
>>>>>>>> Only in this case both users will see the same content (if there is
>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>> special logic for user permissions involved).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If userA wants to fully share his page with userB then he has to
>>>>>>>> share
>>>>>>>> his session too, i.e. both ?5 and jessionid= has to be in the pasted
>>>>>>>> url. I don't recomment this!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ?5 helps when the user refreshes the page in his current session. In
>>>>>>>> this case he will see the same content as before the refresh. In 1.4
>>>>>>>> he'd see the initial state of the page and will loose any state that
>>>>>>>> is not persisted so far.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -igor
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Pointbreak
>>>>>>>>> <po...@ml1.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> It's a problem when users bookmark it. Because ...?5 this session
>>>>>>>>>> is an
>>>>>>>>>> entirely other page as ...?5 in another session tomorrow.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012, at 11:53, Girts Ziemelis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2012-03-19 02:46, Paolo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> I support you! I implemented class NoVersionMount thanks to
>>>>>>>>>>>> pointbreak
>>>>>>>>>>>> in my MainApplication. And It will be my template for future app.
>>>>>>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>>>>>>> to do it, I needed to understood the problem, check on google,
>>>>>>>>>>>> read a
>>>>>>>>>>>> lot of pages, without found a solution, so post the question
>>>>>>>>>>>> here, and
>>>>>>>>>>>> after 3 post, got a right reply for me. Why an wicket user have
>>>>>>>>>>>> to do
>>>>>>>>>>>> all this???? Why not, wicket use the NoVersionMount as default
>>>>>>>>>>>> Mount?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Like in wicket 1.4. And implement an VersionMount as an
>>>>>>>>>>>> alternative
>>>>>>>>>>>> for developer?
>>>>>>>>>>> I actually like this change so far. I can finally tell, that my
>>>>>>>>>>> page is
>>>>>>>>>>> stetefull just by looking at the link and ask myself question - if
>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>> really care so much about the clean link for this page, may be it
>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>> be stateless in a first place?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And why is ?0 such a big problem? It does not cause problems
>>>>>>>>>>> sending
>>>>>>>>>>> links.
>>>>>>>>>>> Is there any real proof of google indexing problems so far?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 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: What real life scenario calls for page ID?
Posted by Martin Grigorov <mg...@apache.org>.
Hi Bertrand,
Did you verify that ? If yes and you have a quickstart then create a ticket.
There are no tickets from this discussion so far.
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 6:31 PM, Bertrand Guay-Paquet
<be...@step.polymtl.ca> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is there a JIRA issue tracking this "render wrong page based on page
> version" problem? I'm very interested in this issue since sharing links to
> stateful pages containing a page version is essentially broken.
>
> Regards,
> Bertrand
>
>
> On 20/03/2012 12:45 PM, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 8:52 AM, Martin Grigorov<mg...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 5:42 PM, Igor Vaynberg<ig...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 8:28 AM, Martin Grigorov<mg...@apache.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 5:20 PM, Igor Vaynberg<ig...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 1:07 AM, Martin Grigorov<mg...@apache.org>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 12:55 AM, Igor
>>>>>>> Vaynberg<ig...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> indeed. we should check that the page pointed to by the id maps back
>>>>>>>> to the mount, and create a new instance based on the mount if it
>>>>>>>> doesnt. jira please.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is already the case, no need of a ticket for this. If there is
>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>> ?5 then Wicket creates ?0 and shows it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> this is not what i was talking about...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The "problem" Pointbreak actually mean is that userA may have opened
>>>>>>> ?5 in his session, copy the url and give it to
>>>>>>> userB, but userB also already have its own session and by chance he
>>>>>>> also had reached ?5 and these two ?5s are
>>>>>>> different because they may have different states for both users.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> not only are ?5 different, but they are entirely different pages.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> so user A goes to /foo, we redirect to /foo?0, they click around and
>>>>>> end up on /foo?2
>>>>>> user B goes to /bar, we redirect to /bar?0, they click around and end
>>>>>> up on /bar?7
>>>>>>
>>>>>> now user A emails user B the /foo?2 link. when user B hits that link
>>>>>> they end up going to a previous version of their *bar* page instead of
>>>>>> some instance of /foo because we do not check the mount vs the page
>>>>>> id, and whats worse we keep the mount in the url even though we are
>>>>>> displaying a page that is not mounted.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ouch!
>>>>>
>>>>>> i guess this is why in 1.4 we dropped the mount from nonbookmarkable
>>>>>> urls...
>>>>>
>>>>> I hope you don't mean that we have to redirect to wicket/page?0 from
>>>>> the bookmarkable url that the user requested.
>>>>
>>>> no. we should redirect to wicket/page?x when the user navigates away
>>>> from the mounted page.
>>>>
>>>> so i go to /bar which is BarPage and end up on /bar?0. click a link
>>>> that does something to BarPage, so end up on /bar?1. click a link that
>>>> takes me to FooPage, at this point since the page does not match the
>>>> mount i should go to /wicket/page?3
>>>
>>> Currently it works just as you described it. Or I don't understand you
>>> well.
>>> A quickstart will make it more clear :-)
>>>
>>> My "ouch" was for something else - userA sends foo?5, but userB's ?5
>>> is for BarPage and current PageProvider will silently return BarPage's
>>> version5. It wont be FooPage!
>>
>> hrm. yes. in a cleanroom quickstart that is indeed how it works. in
>> our prod app, for some reason, it just shows the other page on the old
>> page's mount. i will have to dig into that in our code base.
>>
>> the quickstart does show what you have described above (showing the
>> old version of the page instead of creating a new one), but it also
>> does another interesting. when it redirects to the incorrect version
>> of the other page it also uses wicket/bookmarkable url instead of the
>> mount.
>>
>> so when i am on /bar?4 and change 4 to 2 which is a version of FooPage
>> mounted on /foo i dont go to /foo?5 like i should, instead i go to
>> /wicket/bookmarkable/FooPage?2
>>
>> -igor
>>
>>
>>
>>>> -igor
>>>>
>>>>> It'd be better if we check the type of the stored page against the
>>>>> type of the page that is mounted at this "bookmarkable" url and throw
>>>>> PageExpiredException if they don't match.
>>>>>
>>>>>> -igor
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The confusing part here is "bookmarkable". Now imagine that there is
>>>>>>> no ?pageId in the url. userA clicks several Ajax links to get to
>>>>>>> version5 of that page and then copy/paste the url but userB will see
>>>>>>> the initial state of the page, not version5 that userA actually
>>>>>>> meant.
>>>>>>> So it seems only ?0 is actually "bookmarkable" for stateful pages.
>>>>>>> Only in this case both users will see the same content (if there is
>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>> special logic for user permissions involved).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If userA wants to fully share his page with userB then he has to
>>>>>>> share
>>>>>>> his session too, i.e. both ?5 and jessionid= has to be in the pasted
>>>>>>> url. I don't recomment this!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ?5 helps when the user refreshes the page in his current session. In
>>>>>>> this case he will see the same content as before the refresh. In 1.4
>>>>>>> he'd see the initial state of the page and will loose any state that
>>>>>>> is not persisted so far.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -igor
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Pointbreak
>>>>>>>> <po...@ml1.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's a problem when users bookmark it. Because ...?5 this session
>>>>>>>>> is an
>>>>>>>>> entirely other page as ...?5 in another session tomorrow.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012, at 11:53, Girts Ziemelis wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2012-03-19 02:46, Paolo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I support you! I implemented class NoVersionMount thanks to
>>>>>>>>>>> pointbreak
>>>>>>>>>>> in my MainApplication. And It will be my template for future app.
>>>>>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>>>>>> to do it, I needed to understood the problem, check on google,
>>>>>>>>>>> read a
>>>>>>>>>>> lot of pages, without found a solution, so post the question
>>>>>>>>>>> here, and
>>>>>>>>>>> after 3 post, got a right reply for me. Why an wicket user have
>>>>>>>>>>> to do
>>>>>>>>>>> all this???? Why not, wicket use the NoVersionMount as default
>>>>>>>>>>> Mount?
>>>>>>>>>>> Like in wicket 1.4. And implement an VersionMount as an
>>>>>>>>>>> alternative
>>>>>>>>>>> for developer?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I actually like this change so far. I can finally tell, that my
>>>>>>>>>> page is
>>>>>>>>>> stetefull just by looking at the link and ask myself question - if
>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>> really care so much about the clean link for this page, may be it
>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>> be stateless in a first place?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And why is ?0 such a big problem? It does not cause problems
>>>>>>>>>> sending
>>>>>>>>>> links.
>>>>>>>>>> Is there any real proof of google indexing problems so far?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> 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
>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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