if you really really really want the automatic typing why not do getModelObject().getClass() - prob wont work very well if you return a null, but you cant have everything :)
-Igor
On 3/15/06, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Implementing the getObject method to return the proper type you mean?
Yeah, that wouldn't be the way to go. It would only be feasible with
special models then, which would suck too. I guess I change my mind;
it's not worth the little extra convenience it might get you
sometimes.
Eelco
On 3/15/06, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> yuck. i implement IModel quiet often and it would really suck to have to
> implement this method also eventhough it is only useful for form components.
> besides, what about models that can hold different types of objects? i think
> this is a really bad idea.
>
> -Igor
>
>
>
> On 3/15/06, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> We actually considered this last year, and decided against it. Besides
> the argument that it is more expensive - which probably isn't as valid
> today due to changes in how we handle those model updates - an
> explicit type gives you more flexibility over which converter should
> be used.
>
> I'm wondering now whether we should support and/ and in a future
> version of Wicket. Andre, if you please add a feature request to our
> SF tracker, we'll consider it for Wicket 1.3
>
> Eelco
>
>
> On 3/15/06, Andre Matheus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I agree it will effect lots of things, but in the other side every
> component
> > would have its value automatically validated to the datatype... it would
> be
> > nice... :-)
> >
> > ___
> > Andre Matheus
> >
> >
> > On 3/15/06, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I guess we could do that somehow.
> > > But then we need to specify that somehow in youre IModel interface.
> > >
> > > so instead of getObject(Component) we also should have
> getType(Component)
> > > That will effect a lot of things.
> > >
> > > johan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 3/15/06, Andre Matheus < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Why can't wicket discover the type using reflection?
> > > > ___
> > > > Andre Matheus
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 3/14/06, Igor Vaynberg < [EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
> > > > > also look at FormComponent.setType(Class). wicket can perform type
> > conversion from the request parameter string to the type of your model
> > object. if the conversion fails it generates a validation error.
> > > > >
> > > > > so TextField tf=new TextField("id", model);
> > > > > tf.setType (Integer.class)
> > > > >
> > > > > will only accept values that can be converted to integers
> > > > >
> > > > > for explanation on how errors are constructed try searching the wiki
> > for "validation messages"
> > > > >
> > > > > -Igor
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 3/14/06, Jonathan Cone < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hey Vincent,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In wicket, validators can be add()ed to components like anything
> > else. For example, one way to make a textfield required without using the
> > helper class would be to do something like:
> > > > > > TextField tf = new TextField("id",...);
> > > > > > tf.add(RequiredValidator.getInstance());
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Check out the javadoc for the
> > wicket.markup.html.form.validation package, there are
> some
> > common validators in there and its real easy to write a custom one
> yourself.
> > I think you'll find that validation in wicket is as easy as you were
> > hoping.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: Vincent Jenks
> > > > > > To: wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 3:52 PM
> > > > > > Subject: [Wicket-user] validating input
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I just built a form that has a mixture of TextField, TextArea, and
> > CheckBox components in it. I am now adding validation to get a feel for
> how
> > it works but am confused.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I found that I could substitute a TextField with a
> RequiredTextField
> > and validation was *extremely* simple to setup....if you're using <input>
> > form fields. However, it doesn't appear that these helper classes exist
> for
> > all types of form widgets...or am I mistaken?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > > > > > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > > > > > Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.2.2/280 - Release Date:
> > 3/13/2006
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > __
> > > > André Matheus
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > __
> > André Matheus
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting language
> that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live webcast
> and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding territory!
> http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmdlnk&kid0944&bid$1720&dat1642
> _______________________________________________
> Wicket-user mailing list
> Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting language
that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live webcast
and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding territory!
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmdlnk&kid0944&bid$1720&dat1642
_______________________________________________
Wicket-user mailing list
Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
