-Igor
On 3/15/06,
Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
For Wicket 2.0 we might be helped with generics. Or we might not, as
unfortunately, there is no such thing as T.getClass() or eq is there?
Eelco
On 3/15/06, Igor Vaynberg < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> yeah, implementing the Class getObjectType(). it is nasty if the model can
> hold different types, and it is only useful for a small subset of models.
>
> 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
> >
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------
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
