Okay, I'll write up the enhancement request. ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Mitchell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Struts Users Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 1:10 PM Subject: Re: select multiple=false == select multiple=true
> I agree that using multiple="false" is the same as multiple="true" is > counter-intuitive (even in lieu of what the spec says), but I also agree > (more so perhaps) that changing it will cause backward compatibility issues. > > I'm +1 for the enhancement request, and perhaps we could make this happen in > 2.0 or sooner. > > -- > James Mitchell > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Graham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 12:10 PM > Subject: Re: select multiple=false == select multiple=true > > > > You could create an enhancement request for this but I don't know how the > > other committers will feel about it (even though the issue is quite > small). > > > > David > > > > > > > > >From: "Justin Ashworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >Reply-To: "Struts Users Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >To: "Struts Users Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >Subject: Re: select multiple=false == select multiple=true > > >Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 11:52:38 -0500 > > > > > >You are right, but backwards compatibility problems could be *nearly* > > >eliminated depending on how it's implemented. If null and false were the > > >only values that would not render a multiple select, then it would work > in > > >all cases except for those where people are using multiple="false" to > > >render > > >a multiple select box. If somebody is shortsighted enough to do that, > then > > >they deserve to have the implementation change. ;) > > > > > >Justin > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > > >From: "David Graham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 11:38 AM > > >Subject: Re: select multiple=false == select multiple=true > > > > > > > > > > Your point does make sense but changing the behavior would introduce > > > > backwards compatibility problems. I don't know why the decision was > > >made > > >to > > > > have null mean false and anything else mean true. > > > > > > > > David > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >From: "Justin Ashworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > >Reply-To: "Struts Users Mailing List" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > >To: "Struts Users Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > >Subject: select multiple=false == select multiple=true > > > > >Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 11:20:28 -0500 > > > > > > > > > >The documentation for <html:select> indicates that if the "multiple" > > > > >attribute is specified with ANY non-null value, it will be rendered > as > > >a > > > > >multiple select. However, it would be much more intuitive if this > > >accepted > > > > >a boolean value like, for instance, the disabled attribute of > > > > ><html:option>. I understand that leaving off the attribute will > render > > >a > > > > >single select, but if the value of multiple is coming from a bean, > and > > > > >since it makes sense that this is a boolean value, it would follow > that > > >the > > > > >multiple attribute would understand a boolean value. I can have my > > >bean > > > > >return a String instead of a boolean, and default that String to > null, > > >but > > > > >it still seems as though this attribute could be more > > >developer-friendly. > > > > > > > > > >Am I missing some logical reason behind the behavior of this > attribute? > > >Am > > > > >I the only one who thinks this is counter-intuitive? Would it make > > >sense > > > > >to allow boolean values for this attribute in future releases? > > > > > > > > > >Thanks, > > > > > > > > > >Justin > > > > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > > > MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* > > > > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* > > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
