no, "upper case string" is not a special type, not unless you do not
use String to represent it...like i said, my suggestion is to do this
via a model decorator. further, something like this doesnt even sound
like it belongs in the web layer - sounds like a business requirement
which should be enforced by the setter of the bussiness pojo.
-igor
On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 7:57 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I used the trick it worked great. Thanks very much.
> Should it be considered a bug?
> What is interesting before using setType is that getConverter is actually
> called (from my simple tracing), but after that its methods were
> not called (I guess somewhere it learned the modelobject was a String so
> it simply call the built-in converter.
> I'd think if the getConverter is overriden, its methods should be called
> regardless of what type was it. Besides, UppercaseString is
> a special "Type" so it does not conflict with the rules.
> (Any custom converter could be considered to target a special type
> even though it could be just uppercasing or prepend a * to the string)
> Built-in converter might follow the default rules but
> if custom converter is provided, wicket should totally depend
> on the custom converter to do whatever it does.
>
> Anyway, thanks again.
>
>
>
> >if you set the type yourself by hand then getConverter() will be called and
> >you can do what ever you want
> >We dont do that automatic yes (resolveType doesn't set it to the
> >String.class)
> >
> >johan
> >
> >
> >
> >On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 5:45 PM, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> i thought we agreed converters were type converters...so they shouldnt
> >> be invoked if you are doing string->string :|
> >>
> >> -igor
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 5:47 AM, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote:
> >> > call setTYpe(String.class) on the textfield
> >> > or use that constructor with the type param
> >> >
> >> > does that help?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 1:35 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Below is a custom component with overrding the getConverter
> >> > > for testing purpose. As you could see, it is plain simple one
> >> > > with simple output debugging. But it is not working.
> >> > > the getConverter is called (output "here")
> >> > > but the convertToObject never called (no "there")
> >> > > I basically cut and paste the WicketinAction example.
> >> > > What I am doing wrong here?
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > public class RequiredUppperCaseTextField extends TextField {
> >> > >
> >> > > public RequiredUppperCaseTextField(String id) {
> >> > > super(id);
> >> > > setRequired(true);
> >> > >
> >> > > }
> >> > > @Override
> >> > > public final IConverter getConverter(Class arg000){
> >> > > System.out.println("here"+ arg0);
> >> > > IConverter icAppend = new IConverter(){
> >> > >
> >> > > public Object convertToObject(String arg0, Locale arg1) {
> >> > > System.out.println("there"+ arg0);
> >> > > String s = "sss";
> >> > > return s;
> >> > > }
> >> > >
> >> > > public String convertToString(Object arg0, Locale arg1) {
> >> > > return (String)arg0;
> >> > > }
> >> > >
> >> > > };
> >> > > return icAppend;
> >> > > }
> >> > >
> >> > > }
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > >Override the getConverter() method. First call super and with that
> >> > > >result call the special one (camel casing?)
> >> > > >
> >> > > >On 3/9/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > > >> Hello:
> >> > > >> I wonder how to "append" a converter or java method to a component
> >> so
> >> > > that
> >> > > >I
> >> > > >> would affect what is already defined. For example, I want
> >> "camelize" a
> >> > > >> TextField(or some customized subclass) so that after the converter
> >> > > already
> >> > > >> defined completes the conversion (regardless what has been done in
> >> the
> >> > > >> chain) , I could use the added converted/method to make the final
> >> > > >conversion
> >> > > >> to my need. The example I am seeing appears to "overide" and only
> >> one
> >> > > can
> >> > > >be
> >> > > >> defined for a component, unlike validators, that I could add a
> >> chain of
> >> > > >> them. Let me know if I am wrong about this.
> >> > > >> Thanks
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > > >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]
> >>
> >>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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]
