Actually I agree with Igor on this. The entire purpose to the Select/SelectionOptions was to make it completely flexible to the developer and to allow him to do whatever he wanted. Adding a default option for null detracts from that flexibility a bit because the developer didn't manually add it to
still the same problem then i am affraid.I have to control the visibilty if toat selectoption depending on what the model object is of the Select itself. (null or something)On 12/3/05,
Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
but a SelectOption is not in your collection - its a component. The whole
i dont really understand why this is a /problem/adding it yourself gives you options to add styles, your own text, etc.also most of the time i dont even want a select one message, i just want the box to default to the first choice. so when the page first renders the model is null and no options
That selectchoice is a thing you have to add to the collection of choices?then that is not that nice. Because choose one should only be there if no one is selected and null is required (or something like that)Because of that you can't add it easily to the collection because you have to know that
no, SelectChoice is a component that represents a single option element. you add that to the Select component. SelectChoices is a convinience component that draws out a bunch of option tags much like our current components.
-IgorOn 12/2/05, Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That
yes then it is exactly what i say.for Choose one.. you shouldn't have to need a SelectChoice == option element in youre collectionBecause Choose one should only be there if nothing is selected and null value isn't allowed...
johanOn 12/2/05, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
no, SelectChoice
but a SelectOption is not in your collection - its a component. The whole point of the Select component is to have full control over the markup. All our core choice elements limit your access to markup by producing the entire select output for you including all the options. The point of
I haven't had a chance to use it yet. I'm swamped with some other stuff I need to do. Sorry--AndrewOn 11/30/05, Igor Vaynberg
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:any feedback on this yet? if not, i guess i will polish it with its current feature set and that will be that.
-IgorOn 11/23/05, Andrew Berman
On 11/30/05, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
any feedback on this yet? if not, i guess i will polish it with its current
feature set and that will be that.
Is it in HEAD now? I've already switched to 1.2 :(
Cheers,
--
Davide Savazzi
yes it is in head, and also in 1.1 branch.-IgorOn 11/30/05, Davide Savazzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:On 11/30/05, Igor Vaynberg
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: any feedback on this yet? if not, i guess i will polish it with its current feature set and that will be that.Is it in HEAD now? I've already
any feedback on this yet? if not, i guess i will polish it with its current feature set and that will be that.-IgorOn 11/23/05, Andrew Berman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:I should've known
On 11/23/05, Igor Vaynberg
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
your wish is my command. now you just have to wait a
just checked in my first pass at this so you guys can check it out and give me feedback. i had to check it into wicket_1_1 branch because component reference doesnt work in head yet. i also put the new components into extensions because the core is getting too crowded imho. if people want me to
I won't be able to give it a shot until it works with HEAD as I've made
the switch already and am using 1.2 specific stuff. Once it is
compatible with HEAD, I'll check it out.
--AndrewOn 11/23/05, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
just checked in my first pass at this so you guys can
your wish is my command. now you just have to wait a few hours until anon cvs syncs.-IgorOn 11/23/05, Andrew Berman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:I won't be able to give it a shot until it works with HEAD as I've made
the switch already and am using 1.2 specific stuff. Once it is
compatible with HEAD,
I should've knownOn 11/23/05, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
your wish is my command. now you just have to wait a few hours until anon cvs syncs.-IgorOn 11/23/05,
Andrew Berman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:I won't be able to give it a shot until it works with HEAD as I've made
the
Igor, did you ever make a decision on how you wanted to proceed with this?On 11/6/05, Andrew Berman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:Sounds and looks good to me.
On 11/6/05, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I think the way to go would be to have a set of components that work like CheckGroup/Check
working on it right now :) how did you know?-IgorOn 11/22/05, Andrew Berman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Igor, did you ever make a decision on how you wanted to proceed with this?
On 11/6/05, Andrew Berman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:Sounds and looks good to me.
On 11/6/05, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL
Do you also have a solution for the scenario when you don't want the
HTML to explicitly define group1, group2 etc. as shown in the sample
code I see mentioned previously in the thread?
I don't know the code currently works (I've only started looking
at wicket) so not entirely sure what instances
so you want to specify the optgroup tags in your model? something likeclass Category { String name; List choices }and provide ListCategory as the model? so that the name of categories become optgroup tags?
right now - no.what i am working on is very general and it will be trivial to build the
Something along those lines yeh.On 11/23/05, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
so you want to specify the optgroup tags in your model? something likeclass Category { String name; List choices }and provide ListCategory as the model? so that the name of categories become optgroup tags?
I think the way to go would be to have a set of components that work like CheckGroup/Check
we can have a Select component that acts like the CheckGroup component,
and a SelectChoices component that works like the dropdownchoice with
the exception of rendering select tags. We also have a
Sounds and looks good to me. On 11/6/05, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the way to go would be to have a set of components that work like CheckGroup/Check
we can have a Select component that acts like the CheckGroup component,
and a SelectChoices component that works like the
For the other choice objects (The singleselectchoice, dropdownchoice)
we could have a list of optgroups and the optgroup has a list of its choices
So you are just makeing one line with choices and optgroups (with again a list of choices)
johan
On 11/4/05, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Igor, why wouldn't the model be attached to the OptGroup object? Each OptGroup takes a model which is used for the for attribute.On 11/4/05,
Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For the other choice objects (The singleselectchoice, dropdownchoice)
we could have a list of optgroups and the
you mean for the label attribute? Optgroup in this case wouldnt be a
component so the IModel provided needs to be attached to some component
so that it is detached properly, so the user needs to worry about
attaching it somewhere, and the more optgroups you have the trickier
that gets.
-Igor
On
unless of course we just pass in a string instead of imodel and leave i18n to the user...
-Igor
On 11/4/05, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
you mean for the label attribute? Optgroup in this case wouldnt be a
component so the IModel provided needs to be attached to some component
so that
Yes my bad, I meant the label attribute, I got it confused with the label tag's for attribute. I'm not sure what the best solution is either. Passing a string in definitely works, but it's not really consistent with the rest of the Wicket components (except Label which just takes the string and
I'm sure this is Igor's territory, but I was wondering if, like how Check/CheckGroup and Radio/RadioGroup was done, if we could also add something to permit optgroups. My thought was to have something like a Select object which takes a list of OptGroup components. The OptGroup component then takes
I dont really understant what you mean.
If you want to do it like the Check/CheckGroup is done you would have a
SelectGroup and Select components that you would put into your html and
then you can manually insert optgroup
ie
select wicket:id=selectGroup
optgroupwicket doesnt care/optgroup
select
It would be similar to Check/CheckGroup because you could create a Select object, which is like the CheckGroup object, and an Option object, which is similar to the Check object. By doing that, then I can manually insert the optgroup tag either directly in the HTML or using a WebMarkupContainer in
yeah sorry, think of it as pseudo html :)
-Igor
On 11/3/05, Andrew Berman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It would be similar to Check/CheckGroup because you could create a
Select object, which is like the CheckGroup object, and an Option
object, which is similar to the Check object. By doing that, then
havent decided what the best way to do this is. one problem i see with
passing a list of optgroups is that the optgroup will have to have an
IModel for its label in case someone wants to i18n it, but then how do
we handle attaching and detaching that model since its not attached to
any component.
32 matches
Mail list logo
