+1 for option 2 [for wicket 1.5] --- Inaiat Henrique On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 6:25 AM, Andrea Del Bene <adelb...@ciseonweb.it>wrote:
> Sorry, I know I'm little late but I'd like to vote for the 2nd option > > This has been discussed before >> (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-1221), but I can't find >> the old vote thread to see what folks think. The problem is that a >> checkbox is a weird bird when it comes to HTTP. If it's unchecked, it >> doesn't send a value which makes Wicket think you haven't provided a >> value for that input field. Right now, if you call setRequired(true) >> on a CheckBox, it's going to require the user to actually check the >> box. What do folks think the desired behavior should be? >> >> 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. >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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 > >
