Hi,
(If Igor says anything different, just ignore this! :-))
The change that I'd consider would the standard one of if it'd be
worth passing in a custom IMyBean interface derived from IModel, to
cover the case where I might want to use something like-but-not-a
MyBean, but I can't see anything
That's not a bad idea at all. Thanks!
On Fri, 2007-03-16 at 08:55 +, Gwyn Evans wrote:
Hi,
(If Igor says anything different, just ignore this! :-))
The change that I'd consider would the standard one of if it'd be
worth passing in a custom IMyBean interface derived from IModel,
Ok, thanks for your help, guys. I finally figured out what you meant by
your last comments, and implemented one way to go about this. Not sure
if it's the best way, but it's certainly much cleaner than before.
Thanks!!
Just one question remaining.
What's the deal with getNestedModel( )?
It
:-)
if you disable a formcomponent then neither a set or get will be
called
Yes. But it's not disabled, and get is being called. Just not set.
I must be doing something wrong or missing something in the impl here...
but I don't see what it is. :-(
Cheers,
Dave
Sorry for
Still playing around with this, and I have a question.
When does the IModel's setObject() method get called?
I'm stepping through the code, but this method is never being called...
Cheers,
Dave
On Fri, 2007-03-09 at 16:47 -0600, Thomas R. Corbin wrote:
On Friday, 09 March 2007 11:57 am,
Igor,
Regarding your suggestions below:
class mypage extends page {
private SetPerson selected=new HashSet();
private class PersonCheckboxModel implements IModelBoolean {
private final IModelPerson person;
public final PersonCheckBoxModel(IModelPerson person) {
this.person=person;
setobject is called when the component needs to update the model. eg when
you submit a textfield it needs to push new input into the model and so it
calls setobject(). sometimes components that work with collections do not do
that - they simply clear the collection and add new values - this is so
now all you have to do is
LoadableDetachableModel person=new LoadalbeDetachableModel(id);
new CheckBox(this, cb, new PersonCheckBoxModel(person));
and everything magically works, hope it gives you some ideas.
Yes, it does indeed give me many ideas. Right now, I'm trying to
If you are not changing the object that is the subject of the model, I
see no reason why setObject should be called.
Eelco
On 3/12/07, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
actually we are inconsistent in some places and i have been trying to fix
it. what we mostly do is whenever we work with
ah, but if you modify a collection that is a model object are you infact
changing the object? you are not changing the reference itself but you are
doing something that has sideffects.
eg lets say you have a dropdown choice, but what you want is a collection of
ids not the objects. the easiest
Maybe it is good to gather a couple of use cases and pros and cons and
start a separate thread?
Eelco
On 3/12/07, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ah, but if you modify a collection that is a model object are you infact
changing the object? you are not changing the reference itself but
Sorry for pulling you guys back to my mail issue. ;-)
Since setObject() is not being called, I don't see how to apply my
complex model to its children. I thought I could pull this off with
setModel()... but it just ain't being called.
Ok, let's stick with the person object. The person has
if you disable a formcomponent then neither a set or get will be called
-igor
On 3/12/07, David Leangen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry for pulling you guys back to my mail issue. ;-)
Since setObject() is not being called, I don't see how to apply my
complex model to its children. I thought
On Thursday, 08 March 2007 07:58 pm, Igor Vaynberg escreveu:
see above. take a simple example where you have a list of checkboxes and
you want all selected objects to end up in a collection. how do you do it?
sounds like a complex mapping? the most elegant way is to write a custom
model.
yes, but then you are married to the output it genereates.
[] label
[] label
whats below you can use just for the checkbox, so you are free to generate
your own label/panel/whatever. eg selecting rows in a table.
-igor
On 3/9/07, Thomas R. Corbin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday, 08
On Friday, 09 March 2007 11:57 am, Igor Vaynberg escreveu:
yes, but then you are married to the output it genereates.
[] label
[] label
whats below you can use just for the checkbox, so you are free to generate
your own label/panel/whatever. eg selecting rows in a table.
Ooooh -
Hi!
Two design questions for experienced wicket users... Mail is a bit long.
I apologise for this, but I wanted to explain the situation well.
We have been using wicket now for a while, and I think it's time to try
to finally clean up our code a little. With that in mind, I have two
questions
here are my short answers :) ask more if you need something explained in
detail
On 3/8/07, David Leangen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
First Question: Controller Logic
The idea sounds good, but I'm wondering if this is even necessary. It
was suggested to me that
Great! Thanks for this. Very helpful!
This does give a lot of ideas, indeed. If my understanding is correct,
this would indeed provide a very elegant solution to what we're trying
to do.
One precision:
you have to decide what is clearly business logic vs ui logic. the
business logic should
On 3/8/07, David Leangen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is actually something I'm kinda struggling with.
In our model, the biz logic is the query. So, for instance, if I have
two radios and a group of checkboxes:
( ) Any colour
( ) Choose colours
[ ] Blue
[ ] Red
...
If
20 matches
Mail list logo
