Re: Use Byte vor CheckBox instead of Boolean

2011-01-25 Thread Jeremy Thomerson
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 7:18 AM, MattyDE 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 http://wickettraining.com *Need a CM

Re: Use Byte vor CheckBox instead of Boolean

2011-01-25 Thread MattyDE
nately "getConverter" is final 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: >&g

Re: Use Byte vor CheckBox instead of Boolean

2011-01-25 Thread Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro
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 >

Re: Use Byte vor CheckBox instead of Boolean

2011-01-25 Thread Martin Grigorov
ckBox 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 the Users forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > >

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-