On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Emond Papegaaij
wrote:
> [x] Keep it as currently implemented
>
> EmailAddressValidator is too strict, but at least you can see what it does.
> The regexp in RfcCompliantEmailAddressValidator is crazy, outdated and
> probably very inefficient. IMHO, we should mark
[x] Keep it as currently implemented
EmailAddressValidator is too strict, but at least you can see what it does.
The regexp in RfcCompliantEmailAddressValidator is crazy, outdated and
probably very inefficient. IMHO, we should mark it as deprecated. The best
solution would be to use a parser ge
[+1] Copy ...
Sven
Martijn Dashorst schrieb:
>My vote:
>
>[+1] Copy RfcCompliantEmailAddressValidator over
>EmailAddressValidator, deprecate RfcCompliantEmailAddressValidator
>[ ] Deprecate EmailAddressValidator, move
>RfcCompliantEmailAddressValidator to core, favor RFC in EmailTextField
>[ ]
[x] Copy RfcCompliantEmailAddressValidator over EmailAddressValidator,
deprecate RfcCompliantEmailAddressValidator
2012/7/20 Martijn Dashorst
> EmailAddressValidator is broken. For example, it doesn't validate
> "Martijn Dashorst " properly, which is
> standards compliant. Rfc validator does wo
[+1] Copy RfcCompliantEmailAddressValidator over EmailAddressValidator,
deprecate RfcCompliantEmailAddressValidator
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Ron Smits wrote:
> +1 having the rfc compliant validator in is a good thing
> On Jul 20, 2012 2:51 PM, "Martijn Dashorst"
> wrote:
>
> > My vote:
+1 having the rfc compliant validator in is a good thing
On Jul 20, 2012 2:51 PM, "Martijn Dashorst"
wrote:
> My vote:
>
> [+1] Copy RfcCompliantEmailAddressValidator over
> EmailAddressValidator, deprecate RfcCompliantEmailAddressValidator
> [ ] Deprecate EmailAddressValidator, move
> RfcComplia
My vote:
[+1] Copy RfcCompliantEmailAddressValidator over
EmailAddressValidator, deprecate RfcCompliantEmailAddressValidator
[ ] Deprecate EmailAddressValidator, move
RfcCompliantEmailAddressValidator to core, favor RFC in EmailTextField
[ ] Keep it as currently implemented
Martijn
With proper buttons (submitlinks) attached to the , it Just Works™. Sorry for the noise!
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Martijn Dashorst
wrote:
> Looking at the generated markup in this specific use case, there is no
> way for wicket to know which form submit button was used in order to
> pro
Looking at the generated markup in this specific use case, there is no
way for wicket to know which form submit button was used in order to
process the forms correctly. Unless we start rewriting the markup for
the
Apparently, wicket 1.4.20, 1.5.7 and 6.0.0-beta3 work the same, ignoring [1]
[1] https://cwiki.apache.org/WICKET/nested-forms.html
--
Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com
To my knowledge, the following nested form structure doesn't work in
6.0.0-beta3 as I expect it to work:
Nested
Parent form
Nested form 1
11 matches
Mail list logo
