you can make a model that wraps both and returns result { boolean
master, object value }
then you bind your textfield with ("setting.value") and your
checkbox/flag with "setting.master"
-igor
On Jan 30, 2008 4:49 PM, Sam Barnum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm writing an settings admin page for editing a bunch of Boolean
> settings. I'm using a custom component to edit the boolean values.
> This custom component needs access to two settings objects
> (masterSettings, customSettings) to determine if a custom setting is
> overridden by a master setting.
>
> some pseudocode:
>
> public class SettingsEditPage extends WebPage {
>
> public SettingsEditPage(Settings masterSettings, Settings
> customSettings) {
> Model masterModel = new CompoundPropertyModel(new
> LoadableDetachableModel(masterSettings){/* load method omitted */});
> Model cutomModel = new CompoundPropertyModel(new
> LoadableDetachableModel(customSettings){/* load method omitted */});
> //
> add(new SettingsEditComponent("canDeleteWidgets", masterModel,
> customModel));
> add(new SettingsEditComponent("canCreateWidgets", masterModel,
> customModel));
> add(new SettingsEditComponent("allowsReturns", masterModel,
> customModel));
> }
> }
>
> I'd like to use the component id for the SettingsEditComponent as a
> property expression, like in a CompoundPropertyModel. This would be
> used to query the master settings first. If that returns null, use
> the value from the custom settings. I also need the ability to
> display to the user whether a value came from the masterSettings or
> customSettings.
>
> It's not clear to me what the best way to architect this is.
>
> Should I make a custom model that wraps both the masterSettings and
> customSettings objects? It would need a boolean method to determine
> whether a given propertyExpression is taken from the master or custom
> settings. If I do this, the SettingsEditComponent constructor would
> need to only accept that specific model type (or an interface with
> the boolean method, which is overkill).
>
> Or, should I pass both settings objects into the
> SettingsEditComponent, as pictured above? It seems like it would be
> harder to have detachable models in this case (I guess I'd just need
> to override detatchModels()).
>
> Or, some other option that I'm missing...
>
> Thanks!
>
> --
> Sam Barnum
> http://www.360works.com
> 415.865.0952
>
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
