Thanks Martin, that worked beautifully, well perhaps not beautifully but
quite well.



On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 1:52 AM, Martin Grigorov <[email protected]>wrote:

> Hi Jeremy,
>
> Yes, this is the way to make it working.
> In Wicket 1.5 all this is already improved and Wicket provides Number,
> Url and Range TextFields out of the box but it is quite easy to use
> the other types too.
> To make it work in 1.4.x you'll need to use the monkey-patch approach.
> You can see the history of
>
> https://github.com/wicketstuff/core/tree/master/jdk-1.6-parent/wicket-html5-parent/wicket-html5
> .
> There is a Behavior which did exactly this before the improvements in
> Wicket 1.5.
>
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 1:50 AM, Jeremy Levy <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I've extended TextField to support some of the HTML5 variants, number,
> email
> > etc.  This works great when submitting via normal methods.  However it
> > doesn't work when using AjaxButton, the form data for the HTML5 fields is
> > never POSTed.
> >
> > The root issue appears to be in wicket-ajax.js specifically lines 461-471
> > (Wicket 1.4.17):
> >
> > // this function intentionally ignores image and submit inputs
> > Wicket.Form.serializeInput = function(input) {
> >    var type = input.type.toLowerCase();
> >    if ((type == "checkbox" || type == "radio") && input.checked) {
> >        return Wicket.Form.encode(input.name) + "=" +
> > Wicket.Form.encode(input.value) + "&";
> >    } else if (type == "text" || type == "password" || type == "hidden" ||
> > type == "textarea" || type == "search") {
> >        return Wicket.Form.encode(input.name) + "=" +
> > Wicket.Form.encode(input.value) + "&";
> >    } else {
> >        return "";
> >    }
> > }
> >
> > As I understand this, basically the fields are ignored because they
> aren't
> > specifically handled in the code above... I've tested it by adding type
> > =="number" etc and that fixes the problem.  I suppose my question is, is
> > this the right place to fix it, and if so what is the best way to
> override
> > this function, without having to do the whole js file?
> >
> > J
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Martin Grigorov
> jWeekend
> Training, Consulting, Development
> http://jWeekend.com
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>
>


-- 
Jeremy Levy

Reply via email to