Ok, great. I dont fully get what is the issue with the look and feel? Do you mean the way that errors are displayed? (popups, colored inputs, lists)
Manuel. On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 6:07 PM, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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] > >
