That's what I thought as well, but did not seem to work. Let's just say that the Person object has only one parameter, id which is a Long. So the getAsString method would just return the id. The getAsObject method would create a Person object and set the id and return the Person. So far so good. Well when I try and display the selectOneChoice it still does not correctly select the proper Person. The log has an entry that says warning could not find the Person object to be selected. So this suggests that the value of the selectOneChoice does not get converted, only the selectItems. This seems to be the case. I have three Persons in the selectItems and a breakpoint in the converter's getAsString method. When I run it the breakpoint is only reached three times, where I it should be four (one for the selectOneChoice's value and three for the three selectItems). Is this assumption incorrect?
-----Original Message----- From: Andrew Robinson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 2:03 PM To: MyFaces Discussion Subject: Re: [Trinidad] tr:selectOneChoice and Objects that cannot override equals Use a custom converter on the choice that converts your object, or register a class-converter for all the different classes in your app that need to be converted. On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 4:50 PM, Justin Mckay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > I have a situation where I have some generated objects that do not override > equals that I would like to use in a selectOneChoice field. The issue is > the selected object may not be the same object from the list of objects in > the selectItems. For instance: > > > > <tr:selectOneChoice value="#{bean.person}"> > > <f:selectItems value="#{peopleFinder.people}"/> > > </tr:selectOneChoice> > > > > So here bean.Person is a generated type Person and peopleFinder.people will > be a Map<String,Person> of the same generated type. > > > > The way we have been handeling this is we have been wrapping the objects > with another object that has a properly implemented equals method. This > works but requires us to write more code, I was thinking there would be an > easier way to do this, any ideas? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Justin
