but how does this happen?
why is the panel that has the search box and the button put _inside_
another
form?
let me give you the opposite example:
right now i create a lot of editor objects that are panels with
formcomponents. it would be great if i could have the panel also have a
form
so i can use an editor by itself and not need an external form.
which usecase is more common?
-igor
On 11/6/06, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I already did that in that other thread.
>
> One outer form where you can edit some database data and submit it
> and an inner form that is just a search box so field and button'.
> Then if i submit the edit for the outer form i really don't want to
> process
> the inner form..
> That inner form could be for example to search a value for that outer
> form.
>
> So i am:
> [X] Yes, don't process those pesky little fields
>
> to me it just doesn't make sense if you do it the other way why have
that
> inner form
> where is the usecase for that? That one i can't think of immediately
>
> johan
>
>
> On 11/6/06, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > i would like to see a real world usecase where you would have nested
> forms
> > but will not want to process the inner when the outer is submitted.
> >
> > -igor
> >
> >
> > On 11/5/06, Matej Knopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > People, people!
> > >
> > > I just don't get it. By no means I want to generate invalid input.
> When
> > > using nested forms only the toplevel form is generated as <form>.
All
> > > nested forms are just <div>s in html.
> > >
> > > The only difference is how the form is processed. If a nested form
is
> > > submitted, user input in all fields in entire form is persisted,
only
> > > the submitted form gets really processed. This is IMHO a great
feature
> > > and allows us to create components that are totally independent,
e.g
.
> > > they don't have to care whether they are put in form or not, they
can
> > > contain their own form and everything will work as expected.
> > >
> > > All those remarks about getting against standard are just...
well...
> > > uninformed. We don't render anything against standard
compliance. We
> > > don't render things like
> > >
> > > <form>
> > > ...
> > > <form>
> > > ...
> > >
> > > -Matej
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Nick Heudecker wrote:
> > > > I'm -1 on allowing nested forms, and +1 on throwing a runtime
error
> if
> > > this
> > > > condition is encountered. Non-binding.
> > > >
> > > > On 11/5/06, Korbinian Bachl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> shame on me ...
> > > >>
> > > >> now serious
> > > >> > I think the way we treat nested forms in 2.0 and 1.3 a real
> > > >> > improvement and a showcase for component frameworks: work
> > > >> > around problems in an elegant and meaningful way. Abstract
> > > >> > away the limitations of the protocols we have to work with.
> > > >>
> > > >> i think this is a big danger - remember: most wicket users come
> from
> > a
> > > >> point
> > > >> of GUI building, they dont know the limitations of http, html,
css,
> > > >> ajax -
> > > >> this ends usually up in trouble (security, locked out browsers,
> > > >> unusability,
> > > >> load, not barrer free...)
> > > >>
> > > >> my personal way is to always stick to standards - it might be
> harder
> > > >> sometimes to achive this, but youre on a save side...
> > > >>
> > > >> Regards
> > > >>
> > > >> Korbinian
> > > >>
> > > >> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > > >> > Von: Martijn Dashorst [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >> > Gesendet: Sonntag, 5. November 2006 22:00
> > > >> > An: wicket-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > >> > Betreff: Re: Re: [VOTE] Nested forms - don't process inner
> > > >> > form fields in outer form submit
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On 11/5/06, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >> > > > The vote: don't process inner form fields when the outer
form
> > is
> > > >> > > > submitted [ ] Yes, don't process those pesky little
> > > >> > fields [ ] No,
> > > >> > > > process them as if they were part of the outer form
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > I'm still not crazy about the whole concept, but I guess
> > > >> > nested forms
> > > >> > > can be useful sometimes. I just hope we don't open up
> > > >> > another can of
> > > >> > > worms.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Hmmm.... breakfast. We already allow nested forms, but we
> > > >> > don't do anything about it, and these fail horribly at the
> > > >> > moment as Korbinian reminds us of constantly. The only other
> > > >> > option would be to check the markup and throw a runtime
> > > >> > exception that nesting is not allowed.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I think the way we treat nested forms in 2.0 and 1.3 a real
> > > >> > improvement and a showcase for component frameworks: work
> > > >> > around problems in an elegant and meaningful way. Abstract
> > > >> > away the limitations of the protocols we have to work with.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > My vote:
> > > >> > > [ x ] Yes, don't process those pesky little fields
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > as that is more explicit/ less magic.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Thanks for the vote.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Martijn
> > > >> >
> > > >> > --
> > > >> > <a
> > > >> > href="http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/vote_for/wicket
> > ">Vote</a>
> > > >> > for <a
> > > >> > href="http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/stuff/wicket
> > ">Wicket</a>
> > > >> > at the <a href="http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/">Best
> > > >> > Stuff in the World!</a>
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>