Andrew, how would this be?
CheckBox cb = new CheckBox();
cb.setValue(null);
assertFalse(cb.getValue());
rjrjr
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 5:57 PM, Andrew Pietsch <andrew.piet...@gmail.com>wrote:
> I personally would like to see it support null, not because null is a
> valid UI state but just to be consistent with all the other widgets.
> As far as pectin is concerned the bindings always created before the
> real value arrives so wigets are aften set to null. I've tried to
> avoid wiget specific logic in the core bindings as much as possible
> (it's a slippery slope to ugliness) and CheckBox is the odd one out.
> As a somewhat silly thought would a marker interface be an option i.e.
> perhaps something like `CheckBox implements HasValue, BarfsOnNull` so
> there's at least a mechanism to find out?
>
> On Aug 26, 6:00 pm, Johan Rydberg <johan.rydb...@edgeware.tv> wrote:
> > On 8/25/10 6:16 PM, Ray Ryan wrote:> The use case is dealing with boolean
> values that may benull, 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 Withdrawn.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" usingnull. As a work-around gwt-pectin has it's ownCheckBox
> > impl that acceptsnull.
> >
> > Take this example; We have a master-detail interface. aCheckBoxhas
> > 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 acheckbox. But I still
> thinkCheckBoxshouldacceptnull, for the interface to be consistent.
>
> --
> http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
>
--
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
