Sorry, I know I'm little late but I'd like to vote for the 2nd option
This has been discussed before
(https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-1221), but I can't find
the old vote thread to see what folks think. The problem is that a
checkbox is a weird bird when it comes to HTTP. If it's
+1 for option 2 [for wicket 1.5]
---
Inaiat Henrique
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 6:25 AM, Andrea Del Bene adelb...@ciseonweb.itwrote:
Sorry, I know I'm little late but I'd like to vote for the 2nd option
This has been discussed before
(https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-1221), but I
As the voting stands right now, it looks like option 2 is the winner
(I counted Matthew as +1 for option 1 even though he didn't really
cast a vote, but his response indicated support for option 1):
Option 1: 4 +1s
Option 2: 6 +1s
This isn't an official vote, per se, but it is an informative
+1 for 2nd option
-Original Message-
From: Igor Vaynberg igor.vaynb...@gmail.com
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 11:46:40
To: users@wicket.apache.org
Reply-To: users@wicket.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Behavior of CheckBox With Respect to setRequired(true)
+1 for option 2
-igor
On Fri, Apr
On 06/04/2011 16:53, James Carman wrote:
As the voting stands right now, it looks like option 2 is the winner
(I counted Matthew as +1 for option 1 even though he didn't really
cast a vote, but his response indicated support for option 1):
I was convinced by Igor's comments to change my mind if
+1 for option 2
-igor
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 10:34 AM, James Carman
ja...@carmanconsulting.com wrote:
This has been discussed before
(https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-1221), but I can't find
the old vote thread to see what folks think. The problem is that a
checkbox is a weird
Hi,
As the guy who started that old thread and the old vote, I vote +1
for (2).
--
Kent Tong
Useful news for network admins at
http://www2.cpttm.org.mo/cyberlab/netadmin-news
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
On 02 Apr 2011, at 01:01, Maarten Billemont wrote:
On 02 Apr 2011, at 00:13, Bruno Borges wrote:
[] Please, check this box if you agree with EULA
[ x ] Please, uncheck this box if you don't want to receive notifications
In this case, I would set the first checkbox as required,
No problem. :-)
setRequired means what you said: please, provide a value.
In case of a Checkbox, if setRequired is false, it means: you don't have to
provide a value which in other words means you have the choice to do
nothing about it which in other words means you don't have to check it.
Which
By nature of checkbox you mean nature of HTTP. As setRequired is Wicket
API, IMO it should abstract the empty info about false input from framework
users, in benefit of those who are deliberately sending a 'false' value in
their form input.
On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 12:30 PM, Bruno Borges
I vote for 2, checkbox needs always to satisfy the required requirement. As
pointed, there are no parameter in the HTTP request reader for false inputs,
we can't distinguish 'false' from 'null', so we can't consider that user
isn't meeting the required condition.
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 2:34 PM,
1. The current approach is correct, requiring a checkbox means
requiring that it be checked.
2. A checkbox shouldn't be able to be required. You can't *not*
provide a value (it's binary) for a checkbox, so therefore it always
should satisfy the required requirement.
(1)
I can't think of
I would stick with 1 (required to be checked).
The main reason would be not to break compatibility with old versions. I
actually used .setRequired(true) on legal checkboxes (disclaimers) in
one of our applications because if I have a required checkbox I expect
it to be needed to be checked.
On 01/04/2011 19:34, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
that can be accomplished using a validator.
Is that not true of all form components?
Matt
-igor
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Matthew Pennington
m...@profounddecisions.co.uk wrote:
1. The current approach is correct, requiring a checkbox means
no, validators do not typically handle null values. those are
controlled by the required flag. the reason checkboxes are unique is
that they have no null value, a null in the checkbox means false
-igor
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 11:57 AM, Matthew Pennington
m...@profounddecisions.co.uk wrote:
On
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 2:33 PM, Matthew Pennington
m...@profounddecisions.co.uk wrote:
(1)
I can't think of any useful benefit to (2) but I *can* think of a very
useful benefit for (1) The classic tick this box to indicate that you have
read and agreed to sell us your soul EULA would be the
I second Daniel's comments.
+1 for option 1
From: Daniel Neugebauer mailingli...@energiequant.de
To: users@wicket.apache.org
Date: 04/01/2011 02:56 PM
Subject:Re: [VOTE] Behavior of CheckBox With Respect to
setRequired(true)
I would stick with 1 (required to be checked).
On 01 Apr 2011, at 20:56, Daniel Neugebauer wrote:
I would stick with 1 (required to be checked).
The main reason would be not to break compatibility with old versions.
Lame reason. Don't fix bugged behavior because old code relies on it.
All that got us is a renders-well-in-IE 6.0 web,
to clarify, this kind of change is off the table for 1.4, but may be
implemented in 1.5
-igor
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Maarten Billemont lhun...@gmail.com wrote:
On 01 Apr 2011, at 20:56, Daniel Neugebauer wrote:
I would stick with 1 (required to be checked).
The main reason would
On 01 Apr 2011, at 20:56, Daniel Neugebauer wrote:
BTW an empty string (that's not null) is a string nevertheless. Following the
argument that an unchecked (false) checkbox should be regarded as valid if it
is required, an empty string should be accepted as a valid input as well.
I don't
[] Please, check this box if you agree with EULA
[ x ] Please, uncheck this box if you don't want to receive notifications
In this case, I would set the first checkbox as required, and leave the
later as optional.
Vote for (1) +1
Best regards,
Bruno Borges
www.brunoborges.com.br
+55 21
On 02 Apr 2011, at 00:13, Bruno Borges wrote:
[] Please, check this box if you agree with EULA
[ x ] Please, uncheck this box if you don't want to receive notifications
In this case, I would set the first checkbox as required, and leave the
later as optional.
Vote for (1) +1
I agree with Maarten, +1 for the second behaviour (2) and let validators
do the rest.
--
Marek
On 04/01/2011 11:23 PM, Maarten Billemont wrote:
On 01 Apr 2011, at 20:56, Daniel Neugebauer wrote:
I would stick with 1 (required to be checked).
The main reason would be not to break
On 02 Apr 2011, at 00:13, Bruno Borges wrote:
[ ] Please, check this box if you agree with EULA
[ x ] Please, uncheck this box if you don't want to receive notifications
In this case, I would set the first checkbox as required, and leave the
later as optional.
Vote for (1) +1
On Fri,
24 matches
Mail list logo
