On 8/25/10 6:16 PM, Ray Ryan wrote:
The use case is dealing with boolean values that may be null, and
really a check box is just the wrong UI there. Withdrawn.
I know of at least one data binding framework, gwt-pectin, that signals
"no value" using null. As a work-around gwt-pectin has it's own CheckBox
impl that accepts null.
Take this example; We have a master-detail interface. a CheckBox has
been bound to "selectedElement.male". If there is not a selected
element, a "no value" signal should be sent down through data binding,
not "False". Right?
But then again, there's really no way to communicate something like a
placeholder value for a checkbox. But I still think CheckBox should
accept null, for the interface to be consistent.
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
