yours are just for convenience my example is really just for separation. I really want to separate the 2 things, and yes i would use that more then your example But if we make it a choice then it doesn't matter to much. Both can be done.
johan On 11/6/06, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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: [email protected] > > > >> > 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> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
