> If the field is required, I still want a blank option
> unless there is exactly one option because I don't want the first option to
> be selected as a default. I want the user to consciously choose a value.
>
...wait. what? if it is required is probably not valid to choose the blank
option, right? sounds like a "marketing" requirement to me...
> On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 2:30 PM, Robert Zeigler <robe...@scazdl.org> wrote:
>
>> Why are you wanting to change the "auto" behavior in the first place?
>> In the few cases where there is no "sensible" default value, is using the
>> "blankLabel" and "blankOption" parameters so excruciatingly onerous? If so,
>> why not not simply wrap the select component in a custom select component
>> that provides the values you want? You would have to provide parameters in
>> your wrapper that passed through to the underlying select, but this is
>> certainly doable.
>>
>> In fact, this particular case could be handled (I think?) in 5.2 in a very
>> clean way. 5.2 introduces the possibility for mixins to bind and manipulate
>> the containing component's parameters. So you could, in theory, write a
>> mixin that sets the appropriate values for you. Basically, you would have
>> something like this:
>>
>> public class Blank {
>>
>> @BindParameter
>> private boolean required;
>>
>> @BindParameter
>> private BlankOption blankOption;
>>
>> @BindParameter
>> private blankLabel blankLabel;
>>
>> void beforeRender() {//this will happen before the select's before
>> render...
>> if (//whatever condition you want....) {
>> blankOption=ALWAYS;//we've now overridden the default check in
>> showBlankOption() b/c by the time that renders, showBlankOption will see
>> "blankOption" as being ALWAYS instead of AUTO.
>> blankLabel="Select one...";
>> } else {
>> blankOption=NEVER;
>> }
>> }
>>
>> }
>>
>> Which you could then use like:
>>
>> <t:select ... t:mixins="blank"/>
>>
>> which seems very non-onerous to me. :)
>>
>> Robert
>>
>> On May 13, 2010, at 5/1312:56 PM , Benny Law wrote:
>>
>>> I did look at the demo Geoff posted. How is that going to provide what I
>>> need? I'm sorry, but I fail to see this "easy fix" you mentioned. Maybe
>> you
>>> can be a bit more specific?
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 1:15 PM, Christian Riedel
>>> <cr.ml...@googlemail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well I agree that some more extensibility could be made here and there.
>>>> That particular problem looks like it's worth a JIRA with a patch from
>> you
>>>> that makes the component extensible to fix that problem :)
>>>>
>>>> On the other hand there is an easy fix. Just look at the demo Geoff
>> posted.
>>>> Why do you insist on the BlankOption thing? Just add your blank option
>>>> directly to the list select-options. Then there is no blank option at
>> all...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Am 13.05.2010 um 16:43 schrieb Benny Law:
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks Geoff, but no, it doesn't. Your example shows how the Select
>>>>> component works as is. What I need is a smarter interpretation of
>>>>> BlankOption.AUTO. Basically, if you look at the showBlankOption()
>> method
>>>> in
>>>>> the Select class, you see this:
>>>>>
>>>>> switch (blankOption)
>>>>> {
>>>>> case ALWAYS:
>>>>> return true;
>>>>>
>>>>> case NEVER:
>>>>> return false;
>>>>>
>>>>> default:
>>>>> return !isRequired();
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> What I want is this:
>>>>>
>>>>> switch (blankOption) {
>>>>>
>>>>> case ALWAYS:
>>>>> return true;
>>>>>
>>>>> case NEVER:
>>>>> return false;
>>>>>
>>>>> // AUTO: Decide based on model size, current value, and required
>>>> or
>>>>> not.
>>>>> default:
>>>>> List<OptionModel> options = model.getOptions();
>>>>>
>>>>> if (options.size() == 1) {
>>>>> return !isRequired();
>>>>> }
>>>>> if (options.size() == 0 || value == null) {
>>>>> return true;
>>>>> }
>>>>> if (value != null) {
>>>>> for (OptionModel option: options) {
>>>>> if (option.getValue().equals( value )) {
>>>>> return !isRequired();
>>>>> }
>>>>> }
>>>>> }
>>>>> return true;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> I hope it's clear what I want to achieve with the enhanced logic for
>>>> AUTO.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Benny
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Geoff Callender <
>>>>> geoff.callender.jumpst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Does this help at all?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>> http://jumpstart.doublenegative.com.au/jumpstart/examples/select/varied/$N/$N/$N/$N
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Geoff
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 14/05/2010, at 12:11 AM, Benny Law wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We are talking about subclassing a Tapestry component here. To give
>> you
>>>>>> an
>>>>>>> example, I wanted to subclass the Select component to override how
>>>>>>> BlankOption.AUTO is interpreted. I wanted the logic to not just look
>> at
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> required property but also to consider how many options are available
>>>> and
>>>>>>> whether there is a current value. (I find the current logic lacking
>>>>>> because,
>>>>>>> for example, the first option will always be selected as default if
>>>>>> required
>>>>>>> is true, but there may not be a meaningful default for the field.)
>> All
>>>> I
>>>>>>> needed to do was to override the showBlankOption() method, but I
>>>> couldn't
>>>>>>> because it's a private method. I ended up making a duplicate of the
>>>>>> Select
>>>>>>> component with a modified showBlankOption() method. It just didn't
>> feel
>>>>>>> right. I don't think all this talk about capturing common logic in a
>>>> base
>>>>>>> class or creating a service for it applies here.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In my opinion, a good framework should provide the option for
>> extending
>>>>>> its
>>>>>>> components easily. I believe that with proper design and careful
>>>>>>> consideration, inheritance can still be very useful. Developers
>> should
>>>>>>> understand any potential risks involved in subclassing, but closing
>> the
>>>>>> door
>>>>>>> to subclassing for the sake of backward-compatibility may be an
>>>> overkill
>>>>>>> IMHO. Everything has pros and cons, and the developer is ultimately
>>>>>>> responsible for weighing them and choosing what's best for their
>>>>>> situation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BTW, if anyone can think of a clean way to solve my problem with the
>>>>>> Select
>>>>>>> component, please let me know. Thanks.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Benny
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tapestry.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tapestry.apache.org
>>
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tapestry.apache.org
