Actually, I have to reconsider my non-binding -1. I ran into a situation today where I needed nested forms with the Wizard.
On 11/6/06, Matej Knopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Counter intuitive? Then don't use it. We have lot of use cases for this, components that need to be independent of whether parent contains form or not. No one forces you to nest forms, so take this just as a possibility. -Matej Ryan Sonnek wrote: > My vote is to not allow for inner forms either. It's too much framework > "magic". Wicket is a web framework, and html doesn't allow for nested > forms, so this seems totally counter-intuitive. > > On 11/6/06, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> but how does this happen? >> why is the panel that has the search box and the button put _inside_ >> another >> form? >> >> let me give you the opposite example: >> right now i create a lot of editor objects that are panels with >> formcomponents. it would be great if i could have the panel also have a >> form >> so i can use an editor by itself and not need an external form. >> >> which usecase is more common? >> >> -igor >> >> >> On 11/6/06, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > >> > I already did that in that other thread. >> > >> > One outer form where you can edit some database data and submit it >> > and an inner form that is just a search box so field and button'. >> > Then if i submit the edit for the outer form i really don't want to >> > process >> > the inner form.. >> > That inner form could be for example to search a value for that outer >> > form. >> > >> > So i am: >> > [X] Yes, don't process those pesky little fields >> > >> > to me it just doesn't make sense if you do it the other way why have >> that >> > inner form >> > where is the usecase for that? That one i can't think of immediately >> > >> > johan >> > >> > >> > On 11/6/06, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > > >> > > i would like to see a real world usecase where you would have nested >> > forms >> > > but will not want to process the inner when the outer is submitted. >> > > >> > > -igor >> > > >> > > >> > > On 11/5/06, Matej Knopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > People, people! >> > > > >> > > > I just don't get it. By no means I want to generate invalid input. >> > When >> > > > using nested forms only the toplevel form is generated as <form>. >> All >> > > > nested forms are just <div>s in html. >> > > > >> > > > The only difference is how the form is processed. If a nested form >> is >> > > > submitted, user input in all fields in entire form is persisted, >> only >> > > > the submitted form gets really processed. This is IMHO a great >> feature >> > > > and allows us to create components that are totally independent, >> e.g >> . >> > > > they don't have to care whether they are put in form or not, they >> can >> > > > contain their own form and everything will work as expected. >> > > > >> > > > All those remarks about getting against standard are just... >> well... >> > > > uninformed. We don't render anything against standard >> compliance. We >> > > > don't render things like >> > > > >> > > > <form> >> > > > ... >> > > > <form> >> > > > ... >> > > > >> > > > -Matej >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > Nick Heudecker wrote: >> > > > > I'm -1 on allowing nested forms, and +1 on throwing a runtime >> error >> > if >> > > > this >> > > > > condition is encountered. Non-binding. >> > > > > >> > > > > On 11/5/06, Korbinian Bachl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > > > >> >> > > > >> shame on me ... >> > > > >> >> > > > >> now serious >> > > > >> > I think the way we treat nested forms in 2.0 and 1.3 a real >> > > > >> > improvement and a showcase for component frameworks: work >> > > > >> > around problems in an elegant and meaningful way. Abstract >> > > > >> > away the limitations of the protocols we have to work with. >> > > > >> >> > > > >> i think this is a big danger - remember: most wicket users come >> > from >> > > a >> > > > >> point >> > > > >> of GUI building, they dont know the limitations of http, html, >> css, >> > > > >> ajax - >> > > > >> this ends usually up in trouble (security, locked out browsers, >> > > > >> unusability, >> > > > >> load, not barrer free...) >> > > > >> >> > > > >> my personal way is to always stick to standards - it might be >> > harder >> > > > >> sometimes to achive this, but youre on a save side... >> > > > >> >> > > > >> Regards >> > > > >> >> > > > >> Korbinian >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >> > > > >> > Von: Martijn Dashorst [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > > > >> > Gesendet: Sonntag, 5. November 2006 22:00 >> > > > >> > An: wicket-dev@incubator.apache.org >> > > > >> > Betreff: Re: Re: [VOTE] Nested forms - don't process inner >> > > > >> > form fields in outer form submit >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > On 11/5/06, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > The vote: don't process inner form fields when the outer >> form >> > > is >> > > > >> > > > submitted [ ] Yes, don't process those pesky little >> > > > >> > fields [ ] No, >> > > > >> > > > process them as if they were part of the outer form >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > I'm still not crazy about the whole concept, but I guess >> > > > >> > nested forms >> > > > >> > > can be useful sometimes. I just hope we don't open up >> > > > >> > another can of >> > > > >> > > worms. >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > Hmmm.... breakfast. We already allow nested forms, but we >> > > > >> > don't do anything about it, and these fail horribly at the >> > > > >> > moment as Korbinian reminds us of constantly. The only other >> > > > >> > option would be to check the markup and throw a runtime >> > > > >> > exception that nesting is not allowed. >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > I think the way we treat nested forms in 2.0 and 1.3 a real >> > > > >> > improvement and a showcase for component frameworks: work >> > > > >> > around problems in an elegant and meaningful way. Abstract >> > > > >> > away the limitations of the protocols we have to work with. >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > > My vote: >> > > > >> > > [ x ] Yes, don't process those pesky little fields >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > as that is more explicit/ less magic. >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > Thanks for the vote. >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > Martijn >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > -- >> > > > >> > <a >> > > > >> > href="http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/vote_for/wicket >> > > ">Vote</a> >> > > > >> > for <a >> > > > >> > href="http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/stuff/wicket >> > > ">Wicket</a> >> > > > >> > at the <a href="http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/";>Best >> > > > >> > Stuff in the World!</a> >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> >> >
