Hey,
benco wrote: > > I have a form with multiple checkboxes and a field for "other" values ... > like it: > > [x] value1 > [x] value2 > [ ] value 3 > [ ] _______ > > For this "other" value, the user must check the item to activate the > textfield and be able to fill it. > Sounds reasonable. But I don't see that as default use case. But its and interesting task to solve. How about subclassing (again) the textfield and override _removePlaceholder and only execute the code if the textfield is disabled? Could work in an application context. benco wrote: > > I totally agree with you. > > But I think my problem is more related with serialization than model > creation. Indeed, the model should always keep all the values - it's a > model, not a "result". If there are some more computations/actions done on > the form, it should respect the common "bindings behavior". > > So finally I think I'll subclass "qx.util.Serializer". > Thats also a good idea! Regards, Martin -- View this message in context: http://n2.nabble.com/Discussion-about-forms-controller-value-retrieval-tp4889378p4889913.html Sent from the qooxdoo mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev _______________________________________________ qooxdoo-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/qooxdoo-devel
