Ultimately they're all going to handle it more-or-less the same way: persistent state on the server, or hidden fields in the form. If the code is invisible to the developer, I don't see much of a difference.
I also gave you another option: use a map, keyed by an ID, with an object value. On Monday, October 25, 2010, Peter Bliznak <pbliz...@gmail.com> wrote: > checked CheckboxInterceptor and see what it does. I guess no way around it > > PS as for what I checked before - that was lift and wicked..somehow I found > it friendlier but hey that might be just my opinion :-) > > > On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 10:09 PM, Dave Newton <davelnew...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hidden parameters are the only way to get a value for an unchecked >> checkbox, that's just how HTML works. But yes, you're wrong; the >> checkbox interceptor does the work for you. Please read the >> documentation and just try it. >> >> Dave >> >> (Cumbersome? Compared to what?) >> >> On Monday, October 25, 2010, Peter Bliznak <pbliz...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Sorry about "of course" we have over two dozens of s1 apps and evaluating >> if >> > s2 makes sense to switch to or go with something else. >> > And for that we have over 50 items to cover to see how difficult/easy it >> is >> > in s2. >> > I am really surprise that such a trivial task has to be done using hidden >> > parameters. >> > Just to be sure : you really meant to assign dynamically hidden parameter >> > values inside iterator? -- and then -- since you will end up with 2 >> > collections to go ahead and compared them and figure out what is "missing >> in >> > one of them" and so to get values from the other?...I hope I am wrong - >> > sounds very cumbersome for 2010. >> > >> > On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 9:39 PM, Dave Newton <davelnew...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > >> >> Same way they're generated now, with the checkbox tag, or by hand. Or >> use a >> >> map. >> >> >> >> And there's no "of course": people use both versions. >> >> >> >> Dave >> >> >> >> On Monday, October 25, 2010, Peter Bliznak <pbliz...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > Hi Dave, >> >> > using S2 of course. >> >> > not sure I am getting what you suggested. I have dynamic list and have >> no >> >> > idea what size is going to be (inside my jsp which was created prior >> to >> >> that >> >> > call)-- how would you then create hidden parameters dynamically? >> >> > >> >> > On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 9:19 PM, Dave Newton <davelnew...@gmail.com> >> >> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> Which version of Struts? >> >> >> >> >> >> Struts 2 uses a hidden field to deal with default (unchecked) values. >> >> >> Struts 1 ActionForms used the reset() method to pre-load default >> >> >> values. >> >> >> >> >> >> Dave >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 9:16 PM, Peter Bliznak <pbliz...@gmail.com> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> > Hi, >> >> >> > I have a list over which I am iterating - it has checkbox and other >> >> >> fields. >> >> >> > I know I can define array associated with checkbox's values but >> that >> >> only >> >> >> > returns values which were checked. In my other column I have date >> and >> >> I >> >> >> have >> >> >> > to make that date associated with checkbox's state. How am I >> supposed >> >> to >> >> >> do >> >> >> > that?........Say I get five values in table and decide to check 2 >> of >> >> them >> >> >> > but array is only going to return true for 2 elements ...Is there >> any >> >> way >> >> >> I >> >> >> > would define collection/array for checkboxes and it would return >> ALL >> >> >> value >> >> >> > including those which were unchecked?... >> >> >> > Regards >> >> >> > Peter. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscr...@struts.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: user-h...@struts.apache.org
