Re: Use Byte for CheckBox instead of Boolean

2011-01-31 Thread MattyDE
@ rolandpeng: Thanks alot. It works great! -- View this message in context: http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/Use-Byte-for-CheckBox-instead-of-Boolean-tp3236065p3248333.html Sent from the Users forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com

Re: Use Byte for CheckBox instead of Boolean

2011-01-26 Thread rolandpeng
this message in context: http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/Use-Byte-for-CheckBox-instead-of-Boolean-tp3236065p3238209.html Sent from the Users forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr

Use Byte vor CheckBox instead of Boolean

2011-01-25 Thread MattyDE
Everyone know what i want Byte 0 = False Byte 1 = True. But unfornately getConverter is final in CheckBox so i cant place my own converter there. Any ideas? Thanks :) -- View this message in context: http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/Use-Byte-vor-CheckBox-instead-of-Boolean

Re: Use Byte vor CheckBox instead of Boolean

2011-01-25 Thread Martin Grigorov
. Thanks :) -- View this message in context: http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/Use-Byte-vor-CheckBox-instead-of-Boolean-tp3236065p3236065.html Sent from the Users forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com

Re: Use Byte vor CheckBox instead of Boolean

2011-01-25 Thread Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro
= True. But unfornately getConverter is final in CheckBox so i cant place my own converter there. Any ideas? Thanks :) -- View this message in context: http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/Use-Byte-vor-CheckBox-instead-of-Boolean-tp3236065p3236065.html Sent from the Users forum

Re: Use Byte vor CheckBox instead of Boolean

2011-01-25 Thread MattyDE
in CheckBox so i cant place my own converter there. Any ideas? Copy CheckBox to MyCheckBox and hack it however you want. Thanks :) -- View this message in context: http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/Use-Byte-vor-CheckBox-instead-of-Boolean-tp3236065p3236065.html Sent from

Re: Use Byte vor CheckBox instead of Boolean

2011-01-25 Thread Jeremy Thomerson
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 7:18 AM, MattyDE ufer.mar...@gmail.com wrote: its not the wicket-way right? It's *a* wicket way. I'd say it's better than Martin's suggestion of copy-and-paste code. But, at the end of the day, it's up to your style preference. -- Jeremy Thomerson