Not a bug. Defaults are allowed to supply either a literal default or a
binding. The binding's "get" will evaluate to an object of the proper type.
In fact, if memory serves, when you supply a literal value, tapestry wraps that
in a "literal binding" anyway, because under the hood, all of those parameters
are acting through bindings.
Robert
GATAATGCTATTTCTTTAATTTTCGAA
> On May 16, 2014, at 9:20 AM, Michael Wyraz <michael.wy...@evermind.de> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I found something I do not understand and which is probably a bug. From
> org.apache.tapestry5.corelib.base.AbstractTextField:
>
> @Parameter(required = true, allowNull = false, defaultPrefix =
> BindingConstants.TRANSLATE)
> private FieldTranslator<Object> translate;
>
> @Parameter(defaultPrefix = BindingConstants.VALIDATE)
> @SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
> private FieldValidator<Object> validate;
>
> But the type of the default() methods differ:
>
> final Binding defaultTranslate()
> {
> return defaultProvider.defaultTranslatorBinding("value", resources);
> }
>
> final Binding defaultValidate()
> {
> return defaultProvider.defaultValidatorBinding("value", resources);
> }
>
> The interfaces "Binding" and "FieldTranslator" have nothing common. So I
> cannot imagine that (and how) this could work.
>
> Is it a bug?
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tapestry.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tapestry.apache.org
