application.mount and timing

[Igor Vaynberg <ig...@gmail.com>]

what do you guys think of WICKET-946?

imho we should lock down mount() calls to the scope of application.init(),
but thats just me

-igor

Re: application.mount and timing

[Gwyn Evans <gw...@gmail.com>]

On Wednesday, September 12, 2007, 4:51:24 PM, Igor <ig...@gmail.com> wrote:

> what do you guys think of WICKET-946?
> imho we should lock down mount() calls to the scope of application.init(),
> but thats just me

Well, it could be premature optimisation, but I do wonder if
implementing the patch to synchronize things might be a step in the
wrong direction, so locking them down to init() doesn't seem too
unreasonable to me!

/Gwyn

Re: application.mount and timing

[Eelco Hillenius <ee...@gmail.com>]

On 9/12/07, Igor Vaynberg <ig...@gmail.com> wrote:
> what do you guys think of WICKET-946?
>
> imho we should lock down mount() calls to the scope of application.init(),
> but thats just me

+1

Eelco

Re: application.mount and timing

[Eelco Hillenius <ee...@gmail.com>]

On 9/12/07, Al Maw <wi...@almaw.com> wrote:
> Igor Vaynberg wrote:
> > what do you guys think of WICKET-946?
> >
> > imho we should lock down mount() calls to the scope of application.init(),
> > but thats just me
>
> Why? Seems a fairly reasonable usage of the API to me.
>
> You're advocating a landing page and using funky coding strategies, but
> I see no reason to not do it like this instead.
>
> What if you want to ship an app where your administrator can reconfigure
> the page mounts on the fly? Why not let them do this at runtime? Sure,
> you could have a landing page and do a redirect, but this is a much
> nicer way of doing it.

Sounds reasonable as well.

Eelco

Re: application.mount and timing

[Al Maw <wi...@almaw.com>]

Igor Vaynberg wrote:
> what do you guys think of WICKET-946?
> 
> imho we should lock down mount() calls to the scope of application.init(),
> but thats just me

Why? Seems a fairly reasonable usage of the API to me.

You're advocating a landing page and using funky coding strategies, but 
I see no reason to not do it like this instead.

What if you want to ship an app where your administrator can reconfigure 
the page mounts on the fly? Why not let them do this at runtime? Sure, 
you could have a landing page and do a redirect, but this is a much 
nicer way of doing it.

Synchronizing access seems fine to me. Most people will only use it at 
init(), and even if not it will be called fairly infrequently. I don't 
see that making it synchronized would hurt anyone.

Regards,

Al
-- 
Alastair Maw
Wicket-biased blog at http://herebebeasties.com