On 01/04/2011 19:34, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
that can be accomplished using a validator.
Is that not true of all form components?
Matt
-igor
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Matthew Pennington
<m...@profounddecisions.co.uk> wrote:
1. The current approach is correct, requiring a checkbox means
requiring that it be checked.
2. A checkbox shouldn't be able to be required. You can't *not*
provide a value (it's binary) for a checkbox, so therefore it always
should satisfy the required requirement.
(1)
I can't think of any useful benefit to (2) but I *can* think of a very
useful benefit for (1) The classic "tick this box to indicate that you have
read and agreed to sell us your soul EULA would be the obvious time to use
a checkbox and setRequired(true) if it worked as per (1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
