don't forget the BeanEditorForm... object may as well be null
Howard Lewis Ship [EMAIL PROTECTED]
25.06.2008 00:06
Bitte antworten an
Tapestry users users@tapestry.apache.org
An
Tapestry users users@tapestry.apache.org
Kopie
Thema
Re: Required parameters: also not null?
Working
Em Tue, 24 Jun 2008 14:32:15 -0300, Matt Kerr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
escreveu:
why not specify whether params allow null - rather than break things ?
default to the old behavior.
it's not uncommon to have a null param - dunno why it would be
different in a component.
Agreed 100%. Required =
+1 on something like that.
-Filip
On 2008-06-24 19:48, Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo wrote:
Em Tue, 24 Jun 2008 14:32:15 -0300, Matt Kerr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
escreveu:
why not specify whether params allow null - rather than break things ?
default to the old behavior.
it's not uncommon to
True, my concern is that we'll find that every use of required=true
also has acceptNull=false, in which case we add complexity without
providing value.
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 12:12 PM, Filip S. Adamsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1 on something like that.
-Filip
On 2008-06-24 19:48, Thiago H.