You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@wicket.apache.org by Juha Alatalo <ju...@syncrontech.com> on 2007/10/15 09:49:35 UTC
VisitChildren + IComponentResolver broken in beta 4?
Hi,
If the components are added on the page using ComponentResolver,
visitChildren() method seems to be working incorrectly. Created
following example which works in beta 3 but not in beta 4.
http://download.syncrontech.com/public/VisitChildrenExample.zip
- Juha
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
Re: VisitChildren + IComponentResolver broken in beta 4?
Posted by Ari Suutari <ar...@syncrontech.com>.
Hi,
The original idea in using IComponentResolver in our stuff was that
html designer can just put something in and our own framework (built
on wicket) automagically adds some default components to those
tags, which gives a working 'default application' very easily (we have
lots of simple pages which are used to maintain some kind of basic
parameter data in large systems).
Elsewhere, we have a component (let's say X) which is visible based on what other stuff
(let's say Y) is present on page. How, if our application programmer adds something
that implements Y on page, X automatically appars. This is done by visitChilden call.
Now, if Y is autoAdded, this system broke, since visitChildern no longer found it.
I think there are also some other use cases, which are a little bit different. Actually,
the problem is not the IComponentResolver stuff, I think that we have just been
using visitChilden too much to inspect things. I realize that there are alternatives to
these designs, we might try to change this in the future.
Also, I think that if you remove the autoAdded stuff at end of request instead
of removing it immediately after component's render things are more robust,
since once the component is added, it is there during the whole request.
If someone writes an application which trys to find a component before
it is added, thats a problem in that application. In our case, there is no
problem like this (unless someone starts rendering components in reverse
order or something like that).
Ari S.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Johan Compagner" <jc...@gmail.com>
To: <us...@wicket.apache.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 1:00 AM
Subject: Re: VisitChildren + IComponentResolver broken in beta 4?
> the fix is in.
>
> Still i don't get that you depend on an auto add component from another
> component
> For example is that auto add component always rendered before that other
> componenet?
> How do you exactly use it? And why?
>
> johan
>
>
>
> On 10/22/07, Juha Alatalo <ju...@syncrontech.com> wrote:
>>
>> Great! Thanks a lot Matej. When this fix is coming?
>>
>> - Juha
>>
>> Matej Knopp wrote:
>> > Well, I believe we can keep the component instance until the end of
>> > request and then clean it up in detach, would this help you? (it still
>> > wouldn't be the same as before the fix, as the instance was (supposed
>> > to be) cleaned during the next request, but this means keeping
>> > additional state for no good reason.
>> >
>> > -Matej
>> >
>> > On 10/17/07, Ari Suutari <ar...@syncrontech.com> wrote:
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >>> I'm afraid you dont' really get what IComponentResolver is for. The
>> >>> purpose is to allow creating components from markup for a very short
>> >>> span of time - basically while the components are rendered and they
>> >>> should be removed immediate afterwards. So if you call visitChildren
>> >>> from another component, the resolved component will not be available.
>> >> Well. We have been using this from very early days of wicket
>> without
>> >> a problem. Also, there is no mention about this "very short" time
>> in
>> >> javadoc. Actually, if the autoAdded component was there previously
>> >> for longer time and is now removed immediately this is a quite big
>> >> change of behaviour if looking it from the application.
>> >>
>> >>> What changed in beta 4 is that we now remove the component immediately
>> >>> after it's rendered (inside the autoAdd call) because otherwise It
>> >>> caused us a nasty memory leak.
>> >> We have some rather large sites running with wicket 1.2 using
>> autoAdd
>> >> stuff, haven't noticed any huge leaks there. Couldn't you consider
>> >> any other alternatives for fixing that leak instead of insisting
>> that we are doing
>> >> something so wrong ?
>> >>
>> >> I really like all these IWhateverNiceInterface -things in wicket.
>> Usually,
>> >> when there is a need in application architecture, wicket has had a
>> nice
>> >> interface to support it. But it seems that it is very easy to get
>> yourself
>> >> burnt when using them, since they tend to get either rewritten or
>> their
>> >> behaviour changes.... Which is not a problem for someone who writes
>> >> a smaller web applications with just a couple of pages. But for
>> someone
>> >> who does larger ones, it's not so nice.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Ari S.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> On 10/17/07, Ari Suutari <ar...@syncrontech.com> wrote:
>> >>>> Hi,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> But it looks like that in this case the visitChilder is performed
>> during
>> >>>> render, and it still won't find stuff added by autoAdd.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> It is not a very robust design if the behaviour of
>> autoAdd/visitChilder
>> >>>> would require some kind of component-hierarchy fine-tuning. This kind
>> >>>> of approach might work with static-kind-of applications, but at least
>> >>>> for us, the content in applications is very dynamic and interface
>> like
>> >>>> IComponentResolver has been very handy.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Just a wild guess here - maybe the processing of IComponentResolver
>> stuff
>> >>>> was done earlier in beta3 than in beta4. Not getting this fixed can
>> be pretty annoying
>> >>>> for us - we have a couple of hundreds of pages done with wicket which
>> rely
>> >>>> on this.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> We could of course try to step back in time with svn to see which
>> change
>> >>>> has broken this, but I don't know how much sense it will make unless
>> >>>> developers are not going to admit that this is a problem.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Ari S.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> ----- Original Message -----
>> >>>> From: "Matej Knopp" <ma...@gmail.com>
>> >>>> To: <us...@wicket.apache.org>
>> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 2:15 PM
>> >>>> Subject: Re: VisitChildren + IComponentResolver broken in beta 4?
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> It depends on when you call the visitChildren method. The idea is
>> that
>> >>>>> resolved components are on page only during page render. Otherwise
>> >>>>> they are removed from page.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> -Matej
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> On 10/17/07, Juha Alatalo <ju...@syncrontech.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>> In the JIRA issue following was commented:
>> >>>>>> "This doesn't seem to be a bug in Wicket. In fact, the bug was that
>> it
>> >>>>>> worked before. ..."
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> This new "fix" is kind of a show stopper for us. What actually is
>> the
>> >>>>>> idea of the componentResolver? Functions like visitChildren works
>> for
>> >>>>>> normally added component. Shouldn't those functions work also for
>> >>>>>> components that are added using IComponentResolver as long as those
>> are
>> >>>>>> visible?
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> - Juha
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Juha Alatalo wrote:
>> >>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-1077
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> - Juha
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Matej Knopp wrote:
>> >>>>>>>> Please create a JIRA entry and assign the example to it.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Thanks.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> -Matej
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> On 10/15/07, Juha Alatalo <ju...@syncrontech.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>> Hi,
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> If the components are added on the page using ComponentResolver,
>> >>>>>>>>> visitChildren() method seems to be working incorrectly. Created
>> >>>>>>>>> following example which works in beta 3 but not in beta 4.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> http://download.syncrontech.com/public/VisitChildrenExample.zip
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> - Juha
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>>>>>>>> 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
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>>>> 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
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > 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: VisitChildren + IComponentResolver broken in beta 4?
Posted by Johan Compagner <jc...@gmail.com>.
the fix is in.
Still i don't get that you depend on an auto add component from another
component
For example is that auto add component always rendered before that other
componenet?
How do you exactly use it? And why?
johan
On 10/22/07, Juha Alatalo <ju...@syncrontech.com> wrote:
>
> Great! Thanks a lot Matej. When this fix is coming?
>
> - Juha
>
> Matej Knopp wrote:
> > Well, I believe we can keep the component instance until the end of
> > request and then clean it up in detach, would this help you? (it still
> > wouldn't be the same as before the fix, as the instance was (supposed
> > to be) cleaned during the next request, but this means keeping
> > additional state for no good reason.
> >
> > -Matej
> >
> > On 10/17/07, Ari Suutari <ar...@syncrontech.com> wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >>> I'm afraid you dont' really get what IComponentResolver is for. The
> >>> purpose is to allow creating components from markup for a very short
> >>> span of time - basically while the components are rendered and they
> >>> should be removed immediate afterwards. So if you call visitChildren
> >>> from another component, the resolved component will not be available.
> >> Well. We have been using this from very early days of wicket
> without
> >> a problem. Also, there is no mention about this "very short" time
> in
> >> javadoc. Actually, if the autoAdded component was there previously
> >> for longer time and is now removed immediately this is a quite big
> >> change of behaviour if looking it from the application.
> >>
> >>> What changed in beta 4 is that we now remove the component immediately
> >>> after it's rendered (inside the autoAdd call) because otherwise It
> >>> caused us a nasty memory leak.
> >> We have some rather large sites running with wicket 1.2 using
> autoAdd
> >> stuff, haven't noticed any huge leaks there. Couldn't you consider
> >> any other alternatives for fixing that leak instead of insisting
> that we are doing
> >> something so wrong ?
> >>
> >> I really like all these IWhateverNiceInterface -things in wicket.
> Usually,
> >> when there is a need in application architecture, wicket has had a
> nice
> >> interface to support it. But it seems that it is very easy to get
> yourself
> >> burnt when using them, since they tend to get either rewritten or
> their
> >> behaviour changes.... Which is not a problem for someone who writes
> >> a smaller web applications with just a couple of pages. But for
> someone
> >> who does larger ones, it's not so nice.
> >>
> >>
> >> Ari S.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On 10/17/07, Ari Suutari <ar...@syncrontech.com> wrote:
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> But it looks like that in this case the visitChilder is performed
> during
> >>>> render, and it still won't find stuff added by autoAdd.
> >>>>
> >>>> It is not a very robust design if the behaviour of
> autoAdd/visitChilder
> >>>> would require some kind of component-hierarchy fine-tuning. This kind
> >>>> of approach might work with static-kind-of applications, but at least
> >>>> for us, the content in applications is very dynamic and interface
> like
> >>>> IComponentResolver has been very handy.
> >>>>
> >>>> Just a wild guess here - maybe the processing of IComponentResolver
> stuff
> >>>> was done earlier in beta3 than in beta4. Not getting this fixed can
> be pretty annoying
> >>>> for us - we have a couple of hundreds of pages done with wicket which
> rely
> >>>> on this.
> >>>>
> >>>> We could of course try to step back in time with svn to see which
> change
> >>>> has broken this, but I don't know how much sense it will make unless
> >>>> developers are not going to admit that this is a problem.
> >>>>
> >>>> Ari S.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>>> From: "Matej Knopp" <ma...@gmail.com>
> >>>> To: <us...@wicket.apache.org>
> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 2:15 PM
> >>>> Subject: Re: VisitChildren + IComponentResolver broken in beta 4?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> It depends on when you call the visitChildren method. The idea is
> that
> >>>>> resolved components are on page only during page render. Otherwise
> >>>>> they are removed from page.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -Matej
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 10/17/07, Juha Alatalo <ju...@syncrontech.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> In the JIRA issue following was commented:
> >>>>>> "This doesn't seem to be a bug in Wicket. In fact, the bug was that
> it
> >>>>>> worked before. ..."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This new "fix" is kind of a show stopper for us. What actually is
> the
> >>>>>> idea of the componentResolver? Functions like visitChildren works
> for
> >>>>>> normally added component. Shouldn't those functions work also for
> >>>>>> components that are added using IComponentResolver as long as those
> are
> >>>>>> visible?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> - Juha
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Juha Alatalo wrote:
> >>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-1077
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> - Juha
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Matej Knopp wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Please create a JIRA entry and assign the example to it.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Thanks.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> -Matej
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 10/15/07, Juha Alatalo <ju...@syncrontech.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> If the components are added on the page using ComponentResolver,
> >>>>>>>>> visitChildren() method seems to be working incorrectly. Created
> >>>>>>>>> following example which works in beta 3 but not in beta 4.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> http://download.syncrontech.com/public/VisitChildrenExample.zip
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> - Juha
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>>>> 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
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>> 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
> >>
> >>
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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: VisitChildren + IComponentResolver broken in beta 4?
Posted by Juha Alatalo <ju...@syncrontech.com>.
Great! Thanks a lot Matej. When this fix is coming?
- Juha
Matej Knopp wrote:
> Well, I believe we can keep the component instance until the end of
> request and then clean it up in detach, would this help you? (it still
> wouldn't be the same as before the fix, as the instance was (supposed
> to be) cleaned during the next request, but this means keeping
> additional state for no good reason.
>
> -Matej
>
> On 10/17/07, Ari Suutari <ar...@syncrontech.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>> I'm afraid you dont' really get what IComponentResolver is for. The
>>> purpose is to allow creating components from markup for a very short
>>> span of time - basically while the components are rendered and they
>>> should be removed immediate afterwards. So if you call visitChildren
>>> from another component, the resolved component will not be available.
>> Well. We have been using this from very early days of wicket without
>> a problem. Also, there is no mention about this "very short" time in
>> javadoc. Actually, if the autoAdded component was there previously
>> for longer time and is now removed immediately this is a quite big
>> change of behaviour if looking it from the application.
>>
>>> What changed in beta 4 is that we now remove the component immediately
>>> after it's rendered (inside the autoAdd call) because otherwise It
>>> caused us a nasty memory leak.
>> We have some rather large sites running with wicket 1.2 using autoAdd
>> stuff, haven't noticed any huge leaks there. Couldn't you consider
>> any other alternatives for fixing that leak instead of insisting that we are doing
>> something so wrong ?
>>
>> I really like all these IWhateverNiceInterface -things in wicket. Usually,
>> when there is a need in application architecture, wicket has had a nice
>> interface to support it. But it seems that it is very easy to get yourself
>> burnt when using them, since they tend to get either rewritten or their
>> behaviour changes.... Which is not a problem for someone who writes
>> a smaller web applications with just a couple of pages. But for someone
>> who does larger ones, it's not so nice.
>>
>>
>> Ari S.
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 10/17/07, Ari Suutari <ar...@syncrontech.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> But it looks like that in this case the visitChilder is performed during
>>>> render, and it still won't find stuff added by autoAdd.
>>>>
>>>> It is not a very robust design if the behaviour of autoAdd/visitChilder
>>>> would require some kind of component-hierarchy fine-tuning. This kind
>>>> of approach might work with static-kind-of applications, but at least
>>>> for us, the content in applications is very dynamic and interface like
>>>> IComponentResolver has been very handy.
>>>>
>>>> Just a wild guess here - maybe the processing of IComponentResolver stuff
>>>> was done earlier in beta3 than in beta4. Not getting this fixed can be pretty annoying
>>>> for us - we have a couple of hundreds of pages done with wicket which rely
>>>> on this.
>>>>
>>>> We could of course try to step back in time with svn to see which change
>>>> has broken this, but I don't know how much sense it will make unless
>>>> developers are not going to admit that this is a problem.
>>>>
>>>> Ari S.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "Matej Knopp" <ma...@gmail.com>
>>>> To: <us...@wicket.apache.org>
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 2:15 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: VisitChildren + IComponentResolver broken in beta 4?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> It depends on when you call the visitChildren method. The idea is that
>>>>> resolved components are on page only during page render. Otherwise
>>>>> they are removed from page.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Matej
>>>>>
>>>>> On 10/17/07, Juha Alatalo <ju...@syncrontech.com> wrote:
>>>>>> In the JIRA issue following was commented:
>>>>>> "This doesn't seem to be a bug in Wicket. In fact, the bug was that it
>>>>>> worked before. ..."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This new "fix" is kind of a show stopper for us. What actually is the
>>>>>> idea of the componentResolver? Functions like visitChildren works for
>>>>>> normally added component. Shouldn't those functions work also for
>>>>>> components that are added using IComponentResolver as long as those are
>>>>>> visible?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Juha
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Juha Alatalo wrote:
>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-1077
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Juha
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Matej Knopp wrote:
>>>>>>>> Please create a JIRA entry and assign the example to it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -Matej
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 10/15/07, Juha Alatalo <ju...@syncrontech.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If the components are added on the page using ComponentResolver,
>>>>>>>>> visitChildren() method seems to be working incorrectly. Created
>>>>>>>>> following example which works in beta 3 but not in beta 4.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://download.syncrontech.com/public/VisitChildrenExample.zip
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - Juha
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> 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
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: VisitChildren + IComponentResolver broken in beta 4?
Posted by Ari Suutari <ar...@syncrontech.com>.
Hi,
> Well, I believe we can keep the component instance until the end of
> request and then clean it up in detach, would this help you? (it still
> wouldn't be the same as before the fix, as the instance was (supposed
> to be) cleaned during the next request, but this means keeping
> additional state for no good reason.
>
I think for our case this could be perfect solution. We don't need
the state after the render, the application is dependend on it
only during it.
Thanks,
Ari S.
> -Matej
>
> On 10/17/07, Ari Suutari <ar...@syncrontech.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> > I'm afraid you dont' really get what IComponentResolver is for. The
>> > purpose is to allow creating components from markup for a very short
>> > span of time - basically while the components are rendered and they
>> > should be removed immediate afterwards. So if you call visitChildren
>> > from another component, the resolved component will not be available.
>>
>> Well. We have been using this from very early days of wicket without
>> a problem. Also, there is no mention about this "very short" time in
>> javadoc. Actually, if the autoAdded component was there previously
>> for longer time and is now removed immediately this is a quite big
>> change of behaviour if looking it from the application.
>>
>> >
>> > What changed in beta 4 is that we now remove the component immediately
>> > after it's rendered (inside the autoAdd call) because otherwise It
>> > caused us a nasty memory leak.
>>
>> We have some rather large sites running with wicket 1.2 using autoAdd
>> stuff, haven't noticed any huge leaks there. Couldn't you consider
>> any other alternatives for fixing that leak instead of insisting that we are doing
>> something so wrong ?
>>
>> I really like all these IWhateverNiceInterface -things in wicket. Usually,
>> when there is a need in application architecture, wicket has had a nice
>> interface to support it. But it seems that it is very easy to get yourself
>> burnt when using them, since they tend to get either rewritten or their
>> behaviour changes.... Which is not a problem for someone who writes
>> a smaller web applications with just a couple of pages. But for someone
>> who does larger ones, it's not so nice.
>>
>>
>> Ari S.
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> > On 10/17/07, Ari Suutari <ar...@syncrontech.com> wrote:
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> But it looks like that in this case the visitChilder is performed during
>> >> render, and it still won't find stuff added by autoAdd.
>> >>
>> >> It is not a very robust design if the behaviour of autoAdd/visitChilder
>> >> would require some kind of component-hierarchy fine-tuning. This kind
>> >> of approach might work with static-kind-of applications, but at least
>> >> for us, the content in applications is very dynamic and interface like
>> >> IComponentResolver has been very handy.
>> >>
>> >> Just a wild guess here - maybe the processing of IComponentResolver stuff
>> >> was done earlier in beta3 than in beta4. Not getting this fixed can be pretty annoying
>> >> for us - we have a couple of hundreds of pages done with wicket which rely
>> >> on this.
>> >>
>> >> We could of course try to step back in time with svn to see which change
>> >> has broken this, but I don't know how much sense it will make unless
>> >> developers are not going to admit that this is a problem.
>> >>
>> >> Ari S.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ----- Original Message -----
>> >> From: "Matej Knopp" <ma...@gmail.com>
>> >> To: <us...@wicket.apache.org>
>> >> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 2:15 PM
>> >> Subject: Re: VisitChildren + IComponentResolver broken in beta 4?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > It depends on when you call the visitChildren method. The idea is that
>> >> > resolved components are on page only during page render. Otherwise
>> >> > they are removed from page.
>> >> >
>> >> > -Matej
>> >> >
>> >> > On 10/17/07, Juha Alatalo <ju...@syncrontech.com> wrote:
>> >> >> In the JIRA issue following was commented:
>> >> >> "This doesn't seem to be a bug in Wicket. In fact, the bug was that it
>> >> >> worked before. ..."
>> >> >>
>> >> >> This new "fix" is kind of a show stopper for us. What actually is the
>> >> >> idea of the componentResolver? Functions like visitChildren works for
>> >> >> normally added component. Shouldn't those functions work also for
>> >> >> components that are added using IComponentResolver as long as those are
>> >> >> visible?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> - Juha
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Juha Alatalo wrote:
>> >> >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-1077
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > - Juha
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Matej Knopp wrote:
>> >> >> >> Please create a JIRA entry and assign the example to it.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Thanks.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> -Matej
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> On 10/15/07, Juha Alatalo <ju...@syncrontech.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >>> Hi,
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> If the components are added on the page using ComponentResolver,
>> >> >> >>> visitChildren() method seems to be working incorrectly. Created
>> >> >> >>> following example which works in beta 3 but not in beta 4.
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> http://download.syncrontech.com/public/VisitChildrenExample.zip
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> - Juha
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> >> >>> 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
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> > 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
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: VisitChildren + IComponentResolver broken in beta 4?
Posted by Matej Knopp <ma...@gmail.com>.
Well, I believe we can keep the component instance until the end of
request and then clean it up in detach, would this help you? (it still
wouldn't be the same as before the fix, as the instance was (supposed
to be) cleaned during the next request, but this means keeping
additional state for no good reason.
-Matej
On 10/17/07, Ari Suutari <ar...@syncrontech.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > I'm afraid you dont' really get what IComponentResolver is for. The
> > purpose is to allow creating components from markup for a very short
> > span of time - basically while the components are rendered and they
> > should be removed immediate afterwards. So if you call visitChildren
> > from another component, the resolved component will not be available.
>
> Well. We have been using this from very early days of wicket without
> a problem. Also, there is no mention about this "very short" time in
> javadoc. Actually, if the autoAdded component was there previously
> for longer time and is now removed immediately this is a quite big
> change of behaviour if looking it from the application.
>
> >
> > What changed in beta 4 is that we now remove the component immediately
> > after it's rendered (inside the autoAdd call) because otherwise It
> > caused us a nasty memory leak.
>
> We have some rather large sites running with wicket 1.2 using autoAdd
> stuff, haven't noticed any huge leaks there. Couldn't you consider
> any other alternatives for fixing that leak instead of insisting that we are doing
> something so wrong ?
>
> I really like all these IWhateverNiceInterface -things in wicket. Usually,
> when there is a need in application architecture, wicket has had a nice
> interface to support it. But it seems that it is very easy to get yourself
> burnt when using them, since they tend to get either rewritten or their
> behaviour changes.... Which is not a problem for someone who writes
> a smaller web applications with just a couple of pages. But for someone
> who does larger ones, it's not so nice.
>
>
> Ari S.
>
>
>
> >
> > On 10/17/07, Ari Suutari <ar...@syncrontech.com> wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> But it looks like that in this case the visitChilder is performed during
> >> render, and it still won't find stuff added by autoAdd.
> >>
> >> It is not a very robust design if the behaviour of autoAdd/visitChilder
> >> would require some kind of component-hierarchy fine-tuning. This kind
> >> of approach might work with static-kind-of applications, but at least
> >> for us, the content in applications is very dynamic and interface like
> >> IComponentResolver has been very handy.
> >>
> >> Just a wild guess here - maybe the processing of IComponentResolver stuff
> >> was done earlier in beta3 than in beta4. Not getting this fixed can be pretty annoying
> >> for us - we have a couple of hundreds of pages done with wicket which rely
> >> on this.
> >>
> >> We could of course try to step back in time with svn to see which change
> >> has broken this, but I don't know how much sense it will make unless
> >> developers are not going to admit that this is a problem.
> >>
> >> Ari S.
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Matej Knopp" <ma...@gmail.com>
> >> To: <us...@wicket.apache.org>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 2:15 PM
> >> Subject: Re: VisitChildren + IComponentResolver broken in beta 4?
> >>
> >>
> >> > It depends on when you call the visitChildren method. The idea is that
> >> > resolved components are on page only during page render. Otherwise
> >> > they are removed from page.
> >> >
> >> > -Matej
> >> >
> >> > On 10/17/07, Juha Alatalo <ju...@syncrontech.com> wrote:
> >> >> In the JIRA issue following was commented:
> >> >> "This doesn't seem to be a bug in Wicket. In fact, the bug was that it
> >> >> worked before. ..."
> >> >>
> >> >> This new "fix" is kind of a show stopper for us. What actually is the
> >> >> idea of the componentResolver? Functions like visitChildren works for
> >> >> normally added component. Shouldn't those functions work also for
> >> >> components that are added using IComponentResolver as long as those are
> >> >> visible?
> >> >>
> >> >> - Juha
> >> >>
> >> >> Juha Alatalo wrote:
> >> >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-1077
> >> >> >
> >> >> > - Juha
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Matej Knopp wrote:
> >> >> >> Please create a JIRA entry and assign the example to it.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Thanks.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> -Matej
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On 10/15/07, Juha Alatalo <ju...@syncrontech.com> wrote:
> >> >> >>> Hi,
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> If the components are added on the page using ComponentResolver,
> >> >> >>> visitChildren() method seems to be working incorrectly. Created
> >> >> >>> following example which works in beta 3 but not in beta 4.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> http://download.syncrontech.com/public/VisitChildrenExample.zip
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> - Juha
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >> >>> 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
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > 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
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
Re: VisitChildren + IComponentResolver broken in beta 4?
Posted by Ari Suutari <ar...@syncrontech.com>.
Hi,
> I'm afraid you dont' really get what IComponentResolver is for. The
> purpose is to allow creating components from markup for a very short
> span of time - basically while the components are rendered and they
> should be removed immediate afterwards. So if you call visitChildren
> from another component, the resolved component will not be available.
Well. We have been using this from very early days of wicket without
a problem. Also, there is no mention about this "very short" time in
javadoc. Actually, if the autoAdded component was there previously
for longer time and is now removed immediately this is a quite big
change of behaviour if looking it from the application.
>
> What changed in beta 4 is that we now remove the component immediately
> after it's rendered (inside the autoAdd call) because otherwise It
> caused us a nasty memory leak.
We have some rather large sites running with wicket 1.2 using autoAdd
stuff, haven't noticed any huge leaks there. Couldn't you consider
any other alternatives for fixing that leak instead of insisting that we are doing
something so wrong ?
I really like all these IWhateverNiceInterface -things in wicket. Usually,
when there is a need in application architecture, wicket has had a nice
interface to support it. But it seems that it is very easy to get yourself
burnt when using them, since they tend to get either rewritten or their
behaviour changes.... Which is not a problem for someone who writes
a smaller web applications with just a couple of pages. But for someone
who does larger ones, it's not so nice.
Ari S.
>
> On 10/17/07, Ari Suutari <ar...@syncrontech.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> But it looks like that in this case the visitChilder is performed during
>> render, and it still won't find stuff added by autoAdd.
>>
>> It is not a very robust design if the behaviour of autoAdd/visitChilder
>> would require some kind of component-hierarchy fine-tuning. This kind
>> of approach might work with static-kind-of applications, but at least
>> for us, the content in applications is very dynamic and interface like
>> IComponentResolver has been very handy.
>>
>> Just a wild guess here - maybe the processing of IComponentResolver stuff
>> was done earlier in beta3 than in beta4. Not getting this fixed can be pretty annoying
>> for us - we have a couple of hundreds of pages done with wicket which rely
>> on this.
>>
>> We could of course try to step back in time with svn to see which change
>> has broken this, but I don't know how much sense it will make unless
>> developers are not going to admit that this is a problem.
>>
>> Ari S.
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Matej Knopp" <ma...@gmail.com>
>> To: <us...@wicket.apache.org>
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 2:15 PM
>> Subject: Re: VisitChildren + IComponentResolver broken in beta 4?
>>
>>
>> > It depends on when you call the visitChildren method. The idea is that
>> > resolved components are on page only during page render. Otherwise
>> > they are removed from page.
>> >
>> > -Matej
>> >
>> > On 10/17/07, Juha Alatalo <ju...@syncrontech.com> wrote:
>> >> In the JIRA issue following was commented:
>> >> "This doesn't seem to be a bug in Wicket. In fact, the bug was that it
>> >> worked before. ..."
>> >>
>> >> This new "fix" is kind of a show stopper for us. What actually is the
>> >> idea of the componentResolver? Functions like visitChildren works for
>> >> normally added component. Shouldn't those functions work also for
>> >> components that are added using IComponentResolver as long as those are
>> >> visible?
>> >>
>> >> - Juha
>> >>
>> >> Juha Alatalo wrote:
>> >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-1077
>> >> >
>> >> > - Juha
>> >> >
>> >> > Matej Knopp wrote:
>> >> >> Please create a JIRA entry and assign the example to it.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Thanks.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> -Matej
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On 10/15/07, Juha Alatalo <ju...@syncrontech.com> wrote:
>> >> >>> Hi,
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> If the components are added on the page using ComponentResolver,
>> >> >>> visitChildren() method seems to be working incorrectly. Created
>> >> >>> following example which works in beta 3 but not in beta 4.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> http://download.syncrontech.com/public/VisitChildrenExample.zip
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> - Juha
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> >>> 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
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > 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: VisitChildren + IComponentResolver broken in beta 4?
Posted by Matej Knopp <ma...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
I'm afraid you dont' really get what IComponentResolver is for. The
purpose is to allow creating components from markup for a very short
span of time - basically while the components are rendered and they
should be removed immediate afterwards. So if you call visitChildren
from another component, the resolved component will not be available.
What changed in beta 4 is that we now remove the component immediately
after it's rendered (inside the autoAdd call) because otherwise It
caused us a nasty memory leak.
Also from what I can guess you are doing your solution is really
fragile, as you create a component during another component's
rendering and then want to interact with that component form other
place - but this depends on order in which are components rendered -
doesn't seem like a solid solution.
One thing necessary to realize is that in current status Wicket only
knows the markup that belongs to each component during the render
phase, which is wrong place to create components (except for
components with extremely short lifespan added and rendered through
auto add. but this is internal stuff even though it's not properly
marked as such).
-Matej
On 10/17/07, Ari Suutari <ar...@syncrontech.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> But it looks like that in this case the visitChilder is performed during
> render, and it still won't find stuff added by autoAdd.
>
> It is not a very robust design if the behaviour of autoAdd/visitChilder
> would require some kind of component-hierarchy fine-tuning. This kind
> of approach might work with static-kind-of applications, but at least
> for us, the content in applications is very dynamic and interface like
> IComponentResolver has been very handy.
>
> Just a wild guess here - maybe the processing of IComponentResolver stuff
> was done earlier in beta3 than in beta4. Not getting this fixed can be pretty annoying
> for us - we have a couple of hundreds of pages done with wicket which rely
> on this.
>
> We could of course try to step back in time with svn to see which change
> has broken this, but I don't know how much sense it will make unless
> developers are not going to admit that this is a problem.
>
> Ari S.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Matej Knopp" <ma...@gmail.com>
> To: <us...@wicket.apache.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 2:15 PM
> Subject: Re: VisitChildren + IComponentResolver broken in beta 4?
>
>
> > It depends on when you call the visitChildren method. The idea is that
> > resolved components are on page only during page render. Otherwise
> > they are removed from page.
> >
> > -Matej
> >
> > On 10/17/07, Juha Alatalo <ju...@syncrontech.com> wrote:
> >> In the JIRA issue following was commented:
> >> "This doesn't seem to be a bug in Wicket. In fact, the bug was that it
> >> worked before. ..."
> >>
> >> This new "fix" is kind of a show stopper for us. What actually is the
> >> idea of the componentResolver? Functions like visitChildren works for
> >> normally added component. Shouldn't those functions work also for
> >> components that are added using IComponentResolver as long as those are
> >> visible?
> >>
> >> - Juha
> >>
> >> Juha Alatalo wrote:
> >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-1077
> >> >
> >> > - Juha
> >> >
> >> > Matej Knopp wrote:
> >> >> Please create a JIRA entry and assign the example to it.
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks.
> >> >>
> >> >> -Matej
> >> >>
> >> >> On 10/15/07, Juha Alatalo <ju...@syncrontech.com> wrote:
> >> >>> Hi,
> >> >>>
> >> >>> If the components are added on the page using ComponentResolver,
> >> >>> visitChildren() method seems to be working incorrectly. Created
> >> >>> following example which works in beta 3 but not in beta 4.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> http://download.syncrontech.com/public/VisitChildrenExample.zip
> >> >>>
> >> >>> - Juha
> >> >>>
> >> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >>> 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
> >>
> >>
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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: VisitChildren + IComponentResolver broken in beta 4?
Posted by Ari Suutari <ar...@syncrontech.com>.
Hi,
But it looks like that in this case the visitChilder is performed during
render, and it still won't find stuff added by autoAdd.
It is not a very robust design if the behaviour of autoAdd/visitChilder
would require some kind of component-hierarchy fine-tuning. This kind
of approach might work with static-kind-of applications, but at least
for us, the content in applications is very dynamic and interface like
IComponentResolver has been very handy.
Just a wild guess here - maybe the processing of IComponentResolver stuff
was done earlier in beta3 than in beta4. Not getting this fixed can be pretty annoying
for us - we have a couple of hundreds of pages done with wicket which rely
on this.
We could of course try to step back in time with svn to see which change
has broken this, but I don't know how much sense it will make unless
developers are not going to admit that this is a problem.
Ari S.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matej Knopp" <ma...@gmail.com>
To: <us...@wicket.apache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 2:15 PM
Subject: Re: VisitChildren + IComponentResolver broken in beta 4?
> It depends on when you call the visitChildren method. The idea is that
> resolved components are on page only during page render. Otherwise
> they are removed from page.
>
> -Matej
>
> On 10/17/07, Juha Alatalo <ju...@syncrontech.com> wrote:
>> In the JIRA issue following was commented:
>> "This doesn't seem to be a bug in Wicket. In fact, the bug was that it
>> worked before. ..."
>>
>> This new "fix" is kind of a show stopper for us. What actually is the
>> idea of the componentResolver? Functions like visitChildren works for
>> normally added component. Shouldn't those functions work also for
>> components that are added using IComponentResolver as long as those are
>> visible?
>>
>> - Juha
>>
>> Juha Alatalo wrote:
>> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-1077
>> >
>> > - Juha
>> >
>> > Matej Knopp wrote:
>> >> Please create a JIRA entry and assign the example to it.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks.
>> >>
>> >> -Matej
>> >>
>> >> On 10/15/07, Juha Alatalo <ju...@syncrontech.com> wrote:
>> >>> Hi,
>> >>>
>> >>> If the components are added on the page using ComponentResolver,
>> >>> visitChildren() method seems to be working incorrectly. Created
>> >>> following example which works in beta 3 but not in beta 4.
>> >>>
>> >>> http://download.syncrontech.com/public/VisitChildrenExample.zip
>> >>>
>> >>> - Juha
>> >>>
>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>> 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
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: VisitChildren + IComponentResolver broken in beta 4?
Posted by Matej Knopp <ma...@gmail.com>.
It depends on when you call the visitChildren method. The idea is that
resolved components are on page only during page render. Otherwise
they are removed from page.
-Matej
On 10/17/07, Juha Alatalo <ju...@syncrontech.com> wrote:
> In the JIRA issue following was commented:
> "This doesn't seem to be a bug in Wicket. In fact, the bug was that it
> worked before. ..."
>
> This new "fix" is kind of a show stopper for us. What actually is the
> idea of the componentResolver? Functions like visitChildren works for
> normally added component. Shouldn't those functions work also for
> components that are added using IComponentResolver as long as those are
> visible?
>
> - Juha
>
> Juha Alatalo wrote:
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-1077
> >
> > - Juha
> >
> > Matej Knopp wrote:
> >> Please create a JIRA entry and assign the example to it.
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >>
> >> -Matej
> >>
> >> On 10/15/07, Juha Alatalo <ju...@syncrontech.com> wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> If the components are added on the page using ComponentResolver,
> >>> visitChildren() method seems to be working incorrectly. Created
> >>> following example which works in beta 3 but not in beta 4.
> >>>
> >>> http://download.syncrontech.com/public/VisitChildrenExample.zip
> >>>
> >>> - Juha
> >>>
> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> 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
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
Re: VisitChildren + IComponentResolver broken in beta 4?
Posted by Juha Alatalo <ju...@syncrontech.com>.
In the JIRA issue following was commented:
"This doesn't seem to be a bug in Wicket. In fact, the bug was that it
worked before. ..."
This new "fix" is kind of a show stopper for us. What actually is the
idea of the componentResolver? Functions like visitChildren works for
normally added component. Shouldn't those functions work also for
components that are added using IComponentResolver as long as those are
visible?
- Juha
Juha Alatalo wrote:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-1077
>
> - Juha
>
> Matej Knopp wrote:
>> Please create a JIRA entry and assign the example to it.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> -Matej
>>
>> On 10/15/07, Juha Alatalo <ju...@syncrontech.com> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> If the components are added on the page using ComponentResolver,
>>> visitChildren() method seems to be working incorrectly. Created
>>> following example which works in beta 3 but not in beta 4.
>>>
>>> http://download.syncrontech.com/public/VisitChildrenExample.zip
>>>
>>> - Juha
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 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: VisitChildren + IComponentResolver broken in beta 4?
Posted by Juha Alatalo <ju...@syncrontech.com>.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-1077
- Juha
Matej Knopp wrote:
> Please create a JIRA entry and assign the example to it.
>
> Thanks.
>
> -Matej
>
> On 10/15/07, Juha Alatalo <ju...@syncrontech.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> If the components are added on the page using ComponentResolver,
>> visitChildren() method seems to be working incorrectly. Created
>> following example which works in beta 3 but not in beta 4.
>>
>> http://download.syncrontech.com/public/VisitChildrenExample.zip
>>
>> - Juha
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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: VisitChildren + IComponentResolver broken in beta 4?
Posted by Matej Knopp <ma...@gmail.com>.
Please create a JIRA entry and assign the example to it.
Thanks.
-Matej
On 10/15/07, Juha Alatalo <ju...@syncrontech.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> If the components are added on the page using ComponentResolver,
> visitChildren() method seems to be working incorrectly. Created
> following example which works in beta 3 but not in beta 4.
>
> http://download.syncrontech.com/public/VisitChildrenExample.zip
>
> - Juha
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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