Brilliant!  I'll definitely try out this patch.

On 9 Jun 2006, at 12:21, Eelco Hillenius wrote:

> Sorry, we (comitters) couldn't come to an agreement. Backporting
> deferring the session creation can be done in 1.2 (in fact, it's
> working on my laptop now), but it means two API breaks:
> IBehavior get additional method isStateless, and ISessionStore has
> method getSessionId(Request, boolean) instead of
> getSessionId(Request). One of the comitters felt the API break
> voilates our promise of not doing API breaks for .x.x versions.
>
> I'm attaching this patch for those of you that really need it badly.
> Hopefully, this patch will make it in 1.3 if/when we are going to
> release that, and it is in 2.0 now.
>
> Eelco
>
>
> On 6/8/06, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Yeah, it's in 2.0. We're having the - heated - discussion about
>> backporting it so that it will be available in 1.2.
>>
>> Eelco
>>
>>
>> On 6/8/06, Michael Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > I thought that was the point of 2.0--to break the API for a better
>> > product. =D
>> >
>> > Michael Day
>> >
>> > On Jun 8, 2006, at 6:17 PM, Eelco Hillenius wrote:
>> >
>> > > I'm just about to check in changes that - finally - lets  
>> Wicket defer
>> > > session creation until it is actually needed. The change is  
>> done for
>> > > 2.0/ trunk, but we're currently voting on whether it is worth  
>> an API
>> > > break. IBehavior has one additional method. If you haven't been
>> > > reading the API docs not to implement that interface directly  
>> (and I
>> > > wouldn't know any advantage to do that), it means you don't  
>> have a
>> > > drop in.
>> > >
>> > > So before you do a lot of work, you might want to wait until  
>> we're
>> > > done voting.
>> > >
>> > > Eelco
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On 6/8/06, John Patterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> On 8 Jun 2006, at 09:52, Johan Compagner wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >>> you could return your own versions of ISessionStore
>> > >>> that pretty much doesn't do anything..
>> > >>> Dont know if that always works..
>> > >>
>> > >> Thanks, I think I will try this approach and see what  
>> happens!  I
>> > >> will be building a new site in the next month or two which  
>> will be a
>> > >> good experiment.  If it all works out I will convert the rest  
>> of my
>> > >> main site from Webwork to Wicket.  I want to wait for 2.0 to  
>> become a
>> > >> little more stable first and base it on that.
>> > >>
>> > >> John.
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> _______________________________________________
>> > >> Wicket-user mailing list
>> > >> [email protected]
>> > >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > Wicket-user mailing list
>> > > [email protected]
>> > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Wicket-user mailing list
>> > [email protected]
>> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
>> >
>>
>> <wicket-1.2.patch.txt>
>> <wicket-examples-1.2.patch.txt>
> _______________________________________________
> Wicket-user mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user



_______________________________________________
Wicket-user mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user

Reply via email to