Well, I absolutely agree with you about UI design. However I don't think Trinidad should force The Right Thing upon its users. I have argued to my customer about this issue, and he just wants it that way, so he'll get it.
It's not at all that important after all - there is a workaround I can live with. Maybe if I have a little time to spare, I'll try Andrew's suggestion, which is a nicer workaround. > There's no skinning property. IMO, Trinidad is absolutely doing the > right thing here. In user interfaces, disabled state should only be > used when there is some way for the user to re-enable the field; in > this case, that is not possible, so plain text is giving the user > exactly the right feedback. > > -- Adam On 10/12/07, Stephen Friedrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My requirements demand some read-only fields that show detail data of a selected table row.. > Currently I have found no other solution than to create setters for these fields in my backing bean, even though business logic demands that those values will never be changed. > If I omit the setters Trinidad always renders the values as plain text. > > Am I missing some magic skinning property? >
