You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@wicket.apache.org by Edvin Syse <ed...@sysedata.no> on 2007/11/16 23:55:23 UTC

Is SAFE_CHILD_ID_PATTERN in AbstractRepeater correct, or does it break CSS spec?

Hi,

I use a RepeatingView on a page, and get the following error:

23:48:32,970 WARN  [AbstractRepeater] Child component of repeater 
org.apache.wicket.markup.repeater.RepeatingView:layoutContainers has a 
non-safe child id of container0. Safe child ids must be composed of 
digits only.

Why is container0 a non-safe id, and isn't it wrong to use only digits 
for id's in css?

SAFE_CHILD_ID_PATTERN is defined as "^\\d+$".

I currently use 1.3-rc1.

Sincerely,
Edvin Syse

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org

Re: Is SAFE_CHILD_ID_PATTERN in AbstractRepeater correct, or does it break CSS spec?

Posted by Igor Vaynberg <ig...@gmail.com>.
because in certain scenarios we use regular expressions to get at
certain things, and some of them are hardcoded to skip over [0-9]+
because we consider those reserved for direct children of repeaters...

-igor

On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 12:25 PM, John Patterson <jd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Yeah I will do that... but it seems to work OK anyway.  So I am curious why
> the id must be numeric?
>
>
> igor.vaynberg wrote:
>>
>> why are you even getting the warning? add an intermediate item if you
>> want to use the CPM
>>
>> repeatingview rv=new repeatingview();
>> webmarkupcontainer item=new webmarkupcontainer(rv.newchildid());
>> rv.add(item);
>>
>> item.add(componentwithwhateveridyouwant)
>>
>> -igor
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 11:09 AM, John Patterson <jd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Am I OK to continue ignoring the warning?  Or will this bite me somewhere
>>> else?
>>>
>>>
>>> igor.vaynberg wrote:
>>>>
>>>> there are a couple of historical reasons that are hard for us to
>>>> remove due to api compatibility requirements in 1.3 and 1.4.
>>>>
>>>> this is something we can address once work starts on 1.5
>>>>
>>>> -igor
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 7:20 PM, John Patterson <jd...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Why are only digits allowed?  This stops me using a
>>>>> CompoundPropertyModel.
>>>>> It seems to work fine apart from the warning.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> igor.vaynberg wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Nov 16, 2007 2:55 PM, Edvin Syse <ed...@sysedata.no> wrote:
>>>>>>> Why is container0 a non-safe id,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> because it contains nondigits like the message said?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and isn't it wrong to use only digits
>>>>>>> for id's in css?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> this is component id, not css id...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -igor
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> SAFE_CHILD_ID_PATTERN is defined as "^\\d+$".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I currently use 1.3-rc1.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>>>> Edvin Syse
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> View this message in context:
>>>>> http://www.nabble.com/Is-SAFE_CHILD_ID_PATTERN-in-AbstractRepeater-correct%2C-or-does-it-break-CSS-spec--tp13803342p18901599.html
>>>>> Sent from the Wicket - User 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> View this message in context:
>>> http://www.nabble.com/Is-SAFE_CHILD_ID_PATTERN-in-AbstractRepeater-correct%2C-or-does-it-break-CSS-spec--tp13803342p18907077.html
>>> Sent from the Wicket - User 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Is-SAFE_CHILD_ID_PATTERN-in-AbstractRepeater-correct%2C-or-does-it-break-CSS-spec--tp13803342p18907674.html
> Sent from the Wicket - User 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
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org

Re: Is SAFE_CHILD_ID_PATTERN in AbstractRepeater correct, or does it break CSS spec?

Posted by John Patterson <jd...@gmail.com>.
Yeah I will do that... but it seems to work OK anyway.  So I am curious why
the id must be numeric?


igor.vaynberg wrote:
> 
> why are you even getting the warning? add an intermediate item if you
> want to use the CPM
> 
> repeatingview rv=new repeatingview();
> webmarkupcontainer item=new webmarkupcontainer(rv.newchildid());
> rv.add(item);
> 
> item.add(componentwithwhateveridyouwant)
> 
> -igor
> 
> On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 11:09 AM, John Patterson <jd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Am I OK to continue ignoring the warning?  Or will this bite me somewhere
>> else?
>>
>>
>> igor.vaynberg wrote:
>>>
>>> there are a couple of historical reasons that are hard for us to
>>> remove due to api compatibility requirements in 1.3 and 1.4.
>>>
>>> this is something we can address once work starts on 1.5
>>>
>>> -igor
>>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 7:20 PM, John Patterson <jd...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Why are only digits allowed?  This stops me using a
>>>> CompoundPropertyModel.
>>>> It seems to work fine apart from the warning.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> igor.vaynberg wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Nov 16, 2007 2:55 PM, Edvin Syse <ed...@sysedata.no> wrote:
>>>>>> Why is container0 a non-safe id,
>>>>>
>>>>> because it contains nondigits like the message said?
>>>>>
>>>>>> and isn't it wrong to use only digits
>>>>>> for id's in css?
>>>>>
>>>>> this is component id, not css id...
>>>>>
>>>>> -igor
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> SAFE_CHILD_ID_PATTERN is defined as "^\\d+$".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I currently use 1.3-rc1.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>>> Edvin Syse
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> View this message in context:
>>>> http://www.nabble.com/Is-SAFE_CHILD_ID_PATTERN-in-AbstractRepeater-correct%2C-or-does-it-break-CSS-spec--tp13803342p18901599.html
>>>> Sent from the Wicket - User 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://www.nabble.com/Is-SAFE_CHILD_ID_PATTERN-in-AbstractRepeater-correct%2C-or-does-it-break-CSS-spec--tp13803342p18907077.html
>> Sent from the Wicket - User 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
>>
>>
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
> 
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Is-SAFE_CHILD_ID_PATTERN-in-AbstractRepeater-correct%2C-or-does-it-break-CSS-spec--tp13803342p18907674.html
Sent from the Wicket - User 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: Is SAFE_CHILD_ID_PATTERN in AbstractRepeater correct, or does it break CSS spec?

Posted by Igor Vaynberg <ig...@gmail.com>.
why are you even getting the warning? add an intermediate item if you
want to use the CPM

repeatingview rv=new repeatingview();
webmarkupcontainer item=new webmarkupcontainer(rv.newchildid());
rv.add(item);

item.add(componentwithwhateveridyouwant)

-igor

On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 11:09 AM, John Patterson <jd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Am I OK to continue ignoring the warning?  Or will this bite me somewhere
> else?
>
>
> igor.vaynberg wrote:
>>
>> there are a couple of historical reasons that are hard for us to
>> remove due to api compatibility requirements in 1.3 and 1.4.
>>
>> this is something we can address once work starts on 1.5
>>
>> -igor
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 7:20 PM, John Patterson <jd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Why are only digits allowed?  This stops me using a
>>> CompoundPropertyModel.
>>> It seems to work fine apart from the warning.
>>>
>>>
>>> igor.vaynberg wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Nov 16, 2007 2:55 PM, Edvin Syse <ed...@sysedata.no> wrote:
>>>>> Why is container0 a non-safe id,
>>>>
>>>> because it contains nondigits like the message said?
>>>>
>>>>> and isn't it wrong to use only digits
>>>>> for id's in css?
>>>>
>>>> this is component id, not css id...
>>>>
>>>> -igor
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> SAFE_CHILD_ID_PATTERN is defined as "^\\d+$".
>>>>>
>>>>> I currently use 1.3-rc1.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>> Edvin Syse
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> View this message in context:
>>> http://www.nabble.com/Is-SAFE_CHILD_ID_PATTERN-in-AbstractRepeater-correct%2C-or-does-it-break-CSS-spec--tp13803342p18901599.html
>>> Sent from the Wicket - User 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Is-SAFE_CHILD_ID_PATTERN-in-AbstractRepeater-correct%2C-or-does-it-break-CSS-spec--tp13803342p18907077.html
> Sent from the Wicket - User 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
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org

Re: Is SAFE_CHILD_ID_PATTERN in AbstractRepeater correct, or does it break CSS spec?

Posted by John Patterson <jd...@gmail.com>.
Am I OK to continue ignoring the warning?  Or will this bite me somewhere
else?


igor.vaynberg wrote:
> 
> there are a couple of historical reasons that are hard for us to
> remove due to api compatibility requirements in 1.3 and 1.4.
> 
> this is something we can address once work starts on 1.5
> 
> -igor
> 
> On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 7:20 PM, John Patterson <jd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Why are only digits allowed?  This stops me using a
>> CompoundPropertyModel.
>> It seems to work fine apart from the warning.
>>
>>
>> igor.vaynberg wrote:
>>>
>>> On Nov 16, 2007 2:55 PM, Edvin Syse <ed...@sysedata.no> wrote:
>>>> Why is container0 a non-safe id,
>>>
>>> because it contains nondigits like the message said?
>>>
>>>> and isn't it wrong to use only digits
>>>> for id's in css?
>>>
>>> this is component id, not css id...
>>>
>>> -igor
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> SAFE_CHILD_ID_PATTERN is defined as "^\\d+$".
>>>>
>>>> I currently use 1.3-rc1.
>>>>
>>>> Sincerely,
>>>> Edvin Syse
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://www.nabble.com/Is-SAFE_CHILD_ID_PATTERN-in-AbstractRepeater-correct%2C-or-does-it-break-CSS-spec--tp13803342p18901599.html
>> Sent from the Wicket - User 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
>>
>>
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
> 
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Is-SAFE_CHILD_ID_PATTERN-in-AbstractRepeater-correct%2C-or-does-it-break-CSS-spec--tp13803342p18907077.html
Sent from the Wicket - User 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: Is SAFE_CHILD_ID_PATTERN in AbstractRepeater correct, or does it break CSS spec?

Posted by Igor Vaynberg <ig...@gmail.com>.
there are a couple of historical reasons that are hard for us to
remove due to api compatibility requirements in 1.3 and 1.4.

this is something we can address once work starts on 1.5

-igor

On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 7:20 PM, John Patterson <jd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Why are only digits allowed?  This stops me using a CompoundPropertyModel.
> It seems to work fine apart from the warning.
>
>
> igor.vaynberg wrote:
>>
>> On Nov 16, 2007 2:55 PM, Edvin Syse <ed...@sysedata.no> wrote:
>>> Why is container0 a non-safe id,
>>
>> because it contains nondigits like the message said?
>>
>>> and isn't it wrong to use only digits
>>> for id's in css?
>>
>> this is component id, not css id...
>>
>> -igor
>>
>>
>>>
>>> SAFE_CHILD_ID_PATTERN is defined as "^\\d+$".
>>>
>>> I currently use 1.3-rc1.
>>>
>>> Sincerely,
>>> Edvin Syse
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Is-SAFE_CHILD_ID_PATTERN-in-AbstractRepeater-correct%2C-or-does-it-break-CSS-spec--tp13803342p18901599.html
> Sent from the Wicket - User 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
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org

Re: Is SAFE_CHILD_ID_PATTERN in AbstractRepeater correct, or does it break CSS spec?

Posted by John Patterson <jd...@gmail.com>.
Why are only digits allowed?  This stops me using a CompoundPropertyModel. 
It seems to work fine apart from the warning.


igor.vaynberg wrote:
> 
> On Nov 16, 2007 2:55 PM, Edvin Syse <ed...@sysedata.no> wrote:
>> Why is container0 a non-safe id,
> 
> because it contains nondigits like the message said?
> 
>> and isn't it wrong to use only digits
>> for id's in css?
> 
> this is component id, not css id...
> 
> -igor
> 
> 
>>
>> SAFE_CHILD_ID_PATTERN is defined as "^\\d+$".
>>
>> I currently use 1.3-rc1.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> Edvin Syse
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
> 
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Is-SAFE_CHILD_ID_PATTERN-in-AbstractRepeater-correct%2C-or-does-it-break-CSS-spec--tp13803342p18901599.html
Sent from the Wicket - User 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: Is SAFE_CHILD_ID_PATTERN in AbstractRepeater correct, or does it break CSS spec?

Posted by Igor Vaynberg <ig...@gmail.com>.
On Nov 16, 2007 2:55 PM, Edvin Syse <ed...@sysedata.no> wrote:
> Why is container0 a non-safe id,

because it contains nondigits like the message said?

> and isn't it wrong to use only digits
> for id's in css?

this is component id, not css id...

-igor


>
> SAFE_CHILD_ID_PATTERN is defined as "^\\d+$".
>
> I currently use 1.3-rc1.
>
> Sincerely,
> Edvin Syse
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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