Fwiw, I don't actually care. It just seemed like something that needed
some devil's advocacy.
On Thursday, August 26, 2010, Ray Ryan wrote:
> Andrew, how would this be?
> CheckBox cb = new CheckBox();
>
> cb.setValue(null);
> assertFalse(cb.getValue());
> rjrjr
>
> On Thu, Aug 26, 201
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 Withdrawn.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
Glad I looked at it funny, then.
Micro-design reviews ftw.
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 12:16 PM, Ray Ryan wrote:
> Yeah, thinking about it by the light of day I think it's the wrong
> direction.
>
> The use case is dealing with boolean values that may be null, and really a
> check box is just the w
Yeah, thinking about it by the light of day I think it's the wrong
direction.
The use case is dealing with boolean values that may be null, and really a
check box is just the wrong UI there. Withdrawn.
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 7:01 AM, Bruce Johnson wrote:
> Can you provide a little more context
Can you provide a little more context for why it should work this way?
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 6:49 PM, Ray Ryan wrote:
> When we made the CheckBox widget implement HasValue, we had it throw an
> illegal argument exception when setValue() is called with null.
>
> I think we goofed.
>
> Can we ge
