we had that and we changed it to a boolean because required is a thing that must be validated before converters and other validators
On 11/1/07, Bruno Borges <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > isn't this a reason to start with that talk again Igor, about replacing > setRequired with an IValidator? > > regards, > bruno > > Igor Vaynberg wrote: > > On 8/13/07, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>>> You are just nitpicking. 99.9% of people won't override setRequired to > >>>> start with. > >>>> > >>> i dont know about that. seems to me that the majority of people who > >>> implement a FormComponentPanel will be forced to overwrite it since that > >>> > >> is > >> > >>> currently the model you have put in place. > >>> > >> Yeah, they should, as they probably didn't support the required flag > >> properly before. > >> > > > > > > they did just fine after my "hack" > > > > > >> i had to do it for > >> > >>> formcomponentpanels in my projects, and i really dont like the code it > >>> causes. > >>> > >> You had to? Well that's interesting. How did you fix this before this > >> change then? > >> > > > > > > with my "hack" i had it in my own wicket branch. > > > > The situation is *exactly like it was before this whole discussion* > > > >> with the exception that setRequired isn't final anymore, so that I can > >> fix the components I'm interested in in a way I think works good. I'm > >> pretty sure the fact that setRequired isn't final anymore won't wreak > >> havoc. > >> > > > > > > yes but pushing the required state is ugly, not to mention all the > > noobishess that will come with opening it! > > > > -igor > > > > > > Eelco > > > > > > > >
