done
On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 2:03 AM, Vitaly Tsaplin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Oh, sorry. I meant write in javadoc :)
On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 2:02 AM, Vitaly Tsaplin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For me that's probably fine if you will clearly right in javadoc
that anyone who overrides
Hi guys,
According to the wicket javadoc the method checkRequired () of the
FormComponent class ...should typically only be called when
isRequired() returns true.
But it seems to be different...
public final void validate()
{
validateRequired();
and did you look at checkRequired?
public boolean checkRequired()
{
if (isRequired())
{
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 2:24 PM, Vitaly Tsaplin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hi guys,
According to the wicket javadoc the method checkRequired () of the
FormComponent class ...should
checkRequired () itself shouldn't be called at all unless
setRequired is true...
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 9:43 PM, Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
and did you look at checkRequired?
public boolean checkRequired()
{
if (isRequired())
{
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008
it checks if the required needs to be checked and if that is the case it
checks if the input is set
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 10:32 PM, Vitaly Tsaplin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
checkRequired () itself shouldn't be called at all unless
setRequired is true...
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 9:43 PM,
But the javadoc says:
public boolean checkRequired()
Checks if the form component's 'required' requirement is met. This
method should typically only be called when FormComponent.isRequired()
returns true.
And I agree with javadoc :)
checkRequired () should be called only to know if the form
i dont agree
then you have to do everywhere
if (isRequired()) checkRequired()
thats horrible, checkRequired() can test that just as fine
i will update the javadoc
johan
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 10:51 PM, Vitaly Tsaplin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
But the javadoc says:
public boolean
i agree with vitaly, johan?
-igor
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 2:51 PM, Vitaly Tsaplin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But the javadoc says:
public boolean checkRequired()
Checks if the form component's 'required' requirement is met. This
method should typically only be called when
i disagree
i will not check everywhere for isRequired()
that can be done in 1 method
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 10:54 PM, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
i agree with vitaly, johan?
-igor
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 2:51 PM, Vitaly Tsaplin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But the javadoc
why dont we build that check into validateRequired()
so validateRequired() { if (isrequired() { ...current code } }
that way you never have to call checkrequired() directly, just call
validaterequired()
-igor
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 2:54 PM, Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i dont
but then you are pushing this check to users who change what
checkrequired() means, they will probably forget to do isrequired()
check first...
-igor
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 2:56 PM, Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i disagree
i will not check everywhere for isRequired()
that can
but then you are pushing this check to users who change what
checkrequired() means, they will probably forget to do isrequired()
check first...
^^
|
-Sure, sure, sure! :) That what is really annoying.
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 10:57 PM, Igor Vaynberg
nope
i am against that
validateRequired is protected
checkRequired is public
And if i want to test for requirement from outside i dont want to call first
for every thing isRequired first
i find it very odd that a method can return very funny stuff when you dont
call one method before it first
it
if you also want to check it in validateRequired() thats fine by me by the
way
But i dont want it to be removed in checkRequired()
And the javadoc must be updated anyway
johan
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 11:05 PM, Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
nope
i am against that
validateRequired
thats kinda cludge imho. checkrequired() defines the process of
checking, whether that needs to be invoked or not is up to the
formcomponent and its required attribute.
we can make validaterequired() public, although i dont see where you
would call only that instead of the entire validate()
The code should follow the design and not conversely...
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 11:10 PM, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
thats kinda cludge imho. checkrequired() defines the process of
checking, whether that needs to be invoked or not is up to the
formcomponent and its required
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 11:10 PM, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
thats kinda cludge imho. checkrequired() defines the process of
checking, whether that needs to be invoked or not is up to the
formcomponent and its required attribute.
exactly and why do you want that outside of that
ì guess checkRequired( ) is only overridable because of FormComponentPanel
so that again that can be overriden to have there own requirement check?
so yes it should really be at least protected
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 11:10 PM, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
thats kinda cludge imho.
Any component is overridable, nothing prevents my from overriding
the FormComponent in case if my component does not require any complex
markup.
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 11:22 PM, Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ì guess checkRequired( ) is only overridable because of
huh this is dont get?
What do you do exactly in checkRequired()?
i guess the only thing that is really made for is when you have a composite
component
with more then 1 real input field (in html) that then have to be combined to
check if the requirement is met (all 3 must be filled in or something
thats what i said!
-igor
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 3:14 PM, Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 11:10 PM, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
thats kinda cludge imho. checkrequired() defines the process of
checking, whether that needs to be invoked or
ok, so given that we make checkrequired protected (pushes it into 1.5
timeframe) are you ok with moving isrequired() check out into
validaterequired() ?
-igor
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 3:22 PM, Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ì guess checkRequired( ) is only overridable because of
yes and add a big javadoc warning that this method is not meant to be called
only meant to be overriden..
johan
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 11:35 PM, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
ok, so given that we make checkrequired protected (pushes it into 1.5
timeframe) are you ok with moving
do we need to add that to all our protected methods? if someone needs
it, and they probably do since we made it public, we should prob make
validateRequired() public - it is final iirc
-igor
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 3:36 PM, Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
yes and add a big javadoc
no some protected methods can be called just fine from the outside world
like validateRequired() (that could be public yes)
But checkRequired() doesn't make much to call from the outside world because
we have validateRequired()
except that validateRequired() does set an error then and doesn't
hmm
the more i think about it
the more i stand with my initial reply.
checkRequired was always meant to be standalone
it always checked from day 1 if required must be checked (thats why it is
called *check*Required) and then it actually did the test.
it was first protected final and then a long
What if a requirement cannot be met if an input contains only
spaces. I would override the checkRequired to do so. And it could be
done for a text field. Why not?
Anyway if I can override checkRequired I may not be calling
isRequired and it's perfectly legal. Because the method is under my
Whatever... the only thing you should do asap is to modify the
javadoc... according to the current state. For now it's confusing...
On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 1:18 AM, Vitaly Tsaplin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What if a requirement cannot be met if an input contains only
spaces. I would
Thats all fine, but it was not build/designed that way period...
The biggest api break was at the moment we removed final, which was
there for quite sometime, and then sneaky add javadoc that it is
required to call isRequired first before calling this method! but
before that for this public
For me that's probably fine if you will clearly right in javadoc
that anyone who overrides checkRequired should carefully call
isRequired in order to conform the common behavior.
On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 1:33 AM, Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thats all fine, but it was not
Oh, sorry. I meant write in javadoc :)
On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 2:02 AM, Vitaly Tsaplin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For me that's probably fine if you will clearly right in javadoc
that anyone who overrides checkRequired should carefully call
isRequired in order to conform the common
31 matches
Mail list logo
