Also noticed in prior messages with similar topic that someone suggested
using Void (FormVoid). Never knew there was a Void keyword (capital V).
Is this a recommended technique for Form (ie. FormVoid)?
--
View this message in context:
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 8:37 AM, Mike Dee mdichiapp...@cardeatech.com wrote:
I'd like to try and understand this. What could T possibly be?
It would be whatever your form is editing.
But isn't TextField implying text (or a string). Would TextFieldInteger
make sense (haven't tried it yet)?
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 8:40 AM, Mike Dee mdichiapp...@cardeatech.com wrote:
Also noticed in prior messages with similar topic that someone suggested
using Void (FormVoid). Never knew there was a Void keyword (capital V).
Is this a recommended technique for Form (ie. FormVoid)?
It's
Makes sense. What is the recommended practice when a form is not tied to a
class that encapsulates the model? For example, picture a login screen that
simply capture username and password strings.
--
View this message in context:
You could use Void for that or just use the built-in login form
support that comes with Wicket! :)
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 8:58 AM, Mike Dee mdichiapp...@cardeatech.com wrote:
Makes sense. What is the recommended practice when a form is not tied to a
class that encapsulates the model? For
Great, didn't know there was a built in LoginForm.
--
View this message in context:
http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/Question-about-Wicket-and-generics-tp2341004p2341060.html
Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Mike Dee mdichiapp...@cardeatech.com wrote:
In my experience, there are lots of other situations too. For example, we
have lots of forms for doing searches. The form gathers the search
criteria. Maybe it would make sense to have a SearchFormCriteria class,
i have written plenty forms and about 99% of them have FormVoid.
models on the form are just not that useful, its the fields that
care.
-igor
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 5:45 AM, James Carman
ja...@carmanconsulting.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 8:40 AM, Mike Dee mdichiapp...@cardeatech.com
just offering the other side of the coin...i didnt say we were going
to yank the generics from the Form, chill :)
-igor
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 8:38 AM, James Carman
ja...@carmanconsulting.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Igor Vaynberg igor.vaynb...@gmail.com
wrote:
i have
Trying to understand if there is a pattern here or at least a common way
advanced Wicket users program. I can see case where the Form may represent
an item in the database and it makes sense to have a corresponding model.
Is that a Wicket pattern? This would kind of be like the EJB in J2EE,
@wicket.apache.org
Betreff: Re: Question about Wicket and generics
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Igor Vaynberg igor.vaynb...@gmail.com wrote:
i have written plenty forms and about 99% of them have FormVoid.
models on the form are just not that useful, its the fields that
care.
That doesn't mean that's
Does that mean that somewhere (probably internal to Wicket), there is some
place that does something like this:
X x = MyFormX;
Still having difficulty seeing a case where it is useful to have a situation
that with not FormVoid. Would like to hear about such a situation.
--
View this
12 matches
Mail list logo
