the reason we have not done this is that client side validation is limited. also a lot of applications want a consistent look and feel for javascript validation, which is not possible via a framework. what we are going to do in 1.5 is allow ivalidator to also implement ibehavior, this will allow a clean way of spitting out the javascript from a validator, which is where it belongs.
for now we have a half-way solution which uses ajax and has the advantages of having the same look and feel and being able to validate server-side validation rules that cannot be validated on client alone. -igor On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 1:17 PM, Manuel Corrales <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, i dont want to be flamed by this post, i have read on some places some > not very polite things about wicket vs taperstry. I think that all > frameworks have pro and cons. Here is the thing, i was using Tapestry 5 for > a while, and now i am developing with wicket. One thing i liked about T5 was > the "magic" on the client side validation without the need to write > javascript, and it worked pretty good. I really do not have the time now, > but it would be great to accomplish something like this: > > RequiredTextField tf = new.... > tf.enableClientSideValidation(); > > my approach would be to borrow the T5 code to generate the required > javascript. > > Is this idea worth the time? > > Best regards. > > Manuel. > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
