Thanks! Just the answer I was looking for.
On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 09:15 -0800, Patrick Casey wrote:
> A fairly standard approach is to not send the object out on the
> directlink, but instead send out some sort of uniquely identifiable key and
> the pull the object back out of persistent stor
steners themselves.
Six of one, half dozen of the other I suppose,
--- Pat
-Original Message-
From: news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Raul Raja Martinez
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 10:06 AM
To: tapestry-user@jakarta.apache.org
Subject: Re: ActionLink
dnesday, January 18, 2006 10:06 AM
> To: tapestry-user@jakarta.apache.org
> Subject: Re: ActionLink and DirectLink
>
> Do you mean the DataSqueezer?
>
> http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta-tapestry/DataSqueezer
>
>
>
> Martin Strand wrote:
> > I often find myself doing this
I think this is precisely what Marcus is addressing with his persistence
library at http://kickstart.sourceforge.net (soon to be showing up on a new
server with new name).
We both agree that this is a repetitive task that can/should be handled by
something.
On 1/18/06, Martin Strand <[EMAIL PROTE
Do you mean the DataSqueezer?
http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta-tapestry/DataSqueezer
Martin Strand wrote:
I often find myself doing this, stuffing an object id into a DirectLink
or storing an object id in a persistent page property and then
recreating the object in pageBeginRender. Can't Tapes
Yes.
Write a custom squeeze adapter implementation to handle your objects.
Robert
Martin Strand wrote:
I often find myself doing this, stuffing an object id into a
DirectLink or storing an object id in a persistent page property and
then recreating the object in pageBeginRender. Can't Tapes
I often find myself doing this, stuffing an object id into a DirectLink or
storing an object id in a persistent page property and then recreating the
object in pageBeginRender. Can't Tapestry handle this conversion instead?
I'm thinking of something like the "converter" parameter in the For
A fairly standard approach is to not send the object out on the
directlink, but instead send out some sort of uniquely identifiable key and
the pull the object back out of persistent storage as the first operation in
your direct link.
If you're talking about DB objects, then putti
]>
To: "Tapestry users"
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 1:20 PM
Subject: Re: ActionLink and DirectLink
That sounds like a good idea. But is the data in these fields not also
passed in the URL?
On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 12:59 +0100, Norbert Sándor wrote:
Maybe embed those components
That sounds like a good idea. But is the data in these fields not also
passed in the URL?
On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 12:59 +0100, Norbert Sándor wrote:
> Maybe embed those components in a Form...
> So big objects will be stored in hidden fields.
>
> BR,
> Norbi
>
> - Original Message -
> Fro
Maybe embed those components in a Form...
So big objects will be stored in hidden fields.
BR,
Norbi
- Original Message -
From: "Stijn Christiaens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Tapestry users"
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 12:50 PM
Subject: ActionLink and DirectLink
Hello everybody,
11 matches
Mail list logo
