I think your code seems fine and although I didn't dig through GWTs source code I found it totally legal to have null values for empty fields. I mean if you assume the object you edit goes (at some time) into the database then I think its desirable to store null (= nothing) into the database instead of "empty data".
So I do think its not a bug. Its just how the default TextBox editor implementation (The ValueBoxEditor: http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/source/browse/trunk/user/src/com/google/gwt/editor/ui/client/adapters/ValueBoxEditor.java) handles empty data. And the difference you see between ValueBoxBase<T> and TextBoxBase is because ValueBoxBase<T> operates on any data type T and if you do not know the type you have to return null in case of an empty String in the wrapped input element. Only subclasses of ValueBoxBase<T> can decide if something like an "empty T" exists and thats why TextBoxBase converts null back to an empty String. An IntegerBox for example cant do that (an empty Integer does not exist) and thus it returns null. -- J. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Web Toolkit" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/google-web-toolkit/-/OeNePO10hssJ. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit?hl=en.
