yes i think i explained that before the first call you see is the getConverter call that calls objectToString() on it but if type is not set on a field getConverter is not called for StringToObject
johan On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 11:44 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yes, but the issue I encountered that wicket first > call getConverter method, yet not using > what was returned as supposed to be. Class based > converter is a way to write one default converter > for one class, but if a special converter is provided > for a subset of that class, then the special convert should be used > > >yes, since the converter interface now has > > > >convertToObject(String value); > >convertToString(Object value); > > > >not just a single convertTo(Object object, Class type) > > > >it makes it rather explicit that the converter is meant to convert > >something to a string and back...no? > > > >-igor > > > > > >On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 11:35 AM, Eelco Hillenius > ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 9:45 AM, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >wrote: > >> > >> > i thought we agreed converters were type converters... > >> > >> Did we? :-) > >> > >> Eelco > >> > >> > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> 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] > >
