what does it matter what id the choice generates for the html option?
It shouldn't matter at all. In the model you will be getting an null.
It is just an id between html and the component
Not the component and the model (where your code resides)
johan
On 10/9/06, Matej Knopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well, yes, i agree. The problem is that wicket won't allow me to
generate id for my null value. Look at
look at AbstractSingleSelectChoice#getModelValue:
public final String getModelValue()
{
final T object = getModelObject();
if (object != null)
{
int index = getChoices().indexOf(object);
return getChoiceRenderer().getIdValue(object,
index);
}
return NO_SELECTION_VALUE;
}
So it always returns -1 for null, even if null is not allowed, meaning
that I want my choice renderer to render id for null.
Shoudln't it be more like
public final String getModelValue()
{
final T object = getModelObject();
if (!isNullValid() || object != null)
{
int index = getChoices().indexOf(object);
return getChoiceRenderer().getIdValue(object,
index);
}
return NO_SELECTION_VALUE;
}
?
-Matej
Johan Compagner wrote:
> this: new Boolean[] { null, True, False }.
>
> is not the same as null is a valid value!
> Because you really specify the null as a thing you can choose.
>
> isNullValid is more: new Boolean[] { True, False }.
> and then if isNullValid() == true then we (the framework) generate the
-1
> value..
> So if you just specify it your self in the choices then you completely
> do it
> yourself.
>
> johan
>
>
> On 10/7/06, Matej Knopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Say you have list of options - new Boolean[] { null, True, False }.
>> so Null is a valid value. Why don't we allow choice renderer to assign
>> id value for null in this case?
>>
>> I think when isNullValid() is true, we should allow choice renderer to
>> generate id even for null value (because it's valid). If null is _not_
>> valid, then we should either return "" or -1.
>>
>> Does this sound sane?
>>
>> -Matej
>>
>> Johan Compagner wrote:
>> > i think we can drop that NO_SELECTION_VALUE
>> > and just return "" for it in AbstractSingleSelectChoice
>> > so that it is consistent with what ChoiceRenderer does
>> > Calling choicerender directly doesn't seem to be a good choice
>> > because that is just a default implementation..
>> >
>> > johan
>> >
>> > On 10/6/06, Matej Knopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> There is a inconsistency of how null is handled in
>> >> ChoiceRenderer#getIdValue and
>> AbstractSingleSelectChoice#getModelValue.
>> >>
>> >> ChoiceRenderer renders either "" as id, or index under which the
null
>> >> value is in choices list.
>> >>
>> >> AbstractSingleSelectChoice#getModelValue returns always -1 for null.
>> >>
>> >> The outcome is that if RadioChoice has item with null value and the
>> >> model object is also null, the item is not pre-selected.
>> >>
>> >> (because getValue() is compared to
>> >> getChoiceRenderer().getIdValue(choice, 0))
>> >>
>> >> It is a bug, but I'm not sure what would be the best way to fix it.
>> >>
>> >> Perhaps when AbstractSingleSelectChoice#isNullValid() is true the
>> >> getModelValue should call choiceRenderer.getIdValue(object, index)
>> even
>> >> for null objects?
>> >>
>> >> WDYT?
>> >>
>> >> -Matej
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>
