You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tapestry.apache.org by Glen Stampoultzis <gs...@iinet.net.au> on 2004/02/23 01:29:24 UTC
FormConditional
Just noticed that the condition parameter in FormConditional is not marked
as required. It seems to me that it should be.
Could a committer please make this one-liner? I'd send a patch but it
hardly seems worth it.
Glen Stampoultzis
gstamp@iinet.net.au
http://members.iinet.net.au/~gstamp/glen/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: FormConditional
Posted by Glen Stampoultzis <gs...@iinet.net.au>.
Thanks Erik.
At 12:35 AM 26/02/2004, Erik Hatcher wrote:
>On Feb 22, 2004, at 7:29 PM, Glen Stampoultzis wrote:
>>Just noticed that the condition parameter in FormConditional is not
>>marked as required. It seems to me that it should be.
>>
>>Could a committer please make this one-liner? I'd send a patch but it
>>hardly seems worth it.
>
>I've patched this. I've not used FormConditional directly, yet, myself,
>but condition certainly seems required :)
>
> Erik
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
Glen Stampoultzis
gstamp@iinet.net.au
http://members.iinet.net.au/~gstamp/glen/
Re: FormConditional
Posted by Erik Hatcher <er...@ehatchersolutions.com>.
On Feb 22, 2004, at 7:29 PM, Glen Stampoultzis wrote:
> Just noticed that the condition parameter in FormConditional is not
> marked as required. It seems to me that it should be.
>
> Could a committer please make this one-liner? I'd send a patch but it
> hardly seems worth it.
I've patched this. I've not used FormConditional directly, yet,
myself, but condition certainly seems required :)
Erik
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: FormConditional
Posted by Glen Stampoultzis <gs...@iinet.net.au>.
Great. This is a good thing. There are too many components that could
easily have been combined together. I know I really struggled with the
differences between them when I was trying to learn tapestry.
Just regarding ListEdit. It's a very useful component but certainly more
could be done to make it simpler to use. The number of steps required to
get a working ListEdit/ListEditMap combination going is too large.
Regards,
Glen
At 09:49 AM 27/02/2004, Mindbridge wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Just as info:
>I made FormConditional to be an exact copy of Conditional, so that you can
>freely replace one with the other (later on removed the 'invert' parameter
>for efficiency reasons, however).
>
>That is why 'condition' is not required in FormConditional -- it is not
>required in Conditional either. It definitely does make sense to make it
>required, but since this was done during a beta (a violation in itself), no
>changes were made to the framework.
>
>
>A side note: I happen to be of the same opinion as Howard that Conditional
>and FormCondition, as well as Foreach and ListEdit (and Table/FormTable,
>actually) need to be combined in single components. Basically, if the
>component is in a Form, it can switch to its "form" variant, otherwise
>render normally. Also, I think that there should be a parameter for forcing
>it to render normally even within a form.
>
>Please note that this does not interfere with using the components in a
>non-HTML setting -- you would not have a Form in there, so a
>Foreach/ListEdit combination will always render as Foreach -- there will be
>no HTML-specific code at all.
>
>There have been way too many problems mentioned in the user list that would
>never occur if the the components have this behaviour. Perhaps the key to
>avoiding many new ones is making the way data is stored by ListEdit a bit
>more natural, but that's another discussion.
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Glen Stampoultzis" <gs...@iinet.net.au>
>To: <ta...@jakarta.apache.org>
>Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 2:29 AM
>Subject: FormConditional
>
>
> >
> > Just noticed that the condition parameter in FormConditional is not marked
> > as required. It seems to me that it should be.
> >
> > Could a committer please make this one-liner? I'd send a patch but it
> > hardly seems worth it.
> >
> >
> >
> > Glen Stampoultzis
> > gstamp@iinet.net.au
> > http://members.iinet.net.au/~gstamp/glen/
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Glen Stampoultzis
gstamp@iinet.net.au
http://members.iinet.net.au/~gstamp/glen/
Re: FormConditional
Posted by Mindbridge <mi...@yahoo.com>.
Yes, Howard is right, sorry if I was not clear.
I have no qualms with things remaining as they are now.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Erik Hatcher" <er...@ehatchersolutions.com>
To: "Tapestry development" <ta...@jakarta.apache.org>
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 5:45 AM
Subject: Re: FormConditional
> Ok, so shouldn't we make it that way before 3.0 FINAL?
>
> On Feb 26, 2004, at 10:23 PM, Howard M. Lewis Ship wrote:
> > No, I think Mindbridge was saying he didn't make the Conditional
> > component's condition parameter
> > required, even though it should be.
> >
> > --
> > Howard M. Lewis Ship
> > Independent J2EE / Open-Source Java Consultant
> > Creator, Tapestry: Java Web Components
> > http://howardlewisship.com
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Erik Hatcher [mailto:erik@ehatchersolutions.com]
> >> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 8:53 PM
> >> To: Tapestry development
> >> Subject: Re: FormConditional
> >>
> >>
> >> On Feb 26, 2004, at 5:49 PM, Mindbridge wrote:
> >>> That is why 'condition' is not required in FormConditional
> >> -- it is not
> >>> required in Conditional either. It definitely does make
> >> sense to make
> >>> it
> >>> required, but since this was done during a beta (a violation in
> >>> itself), no
> >>> changes were made to the framework.
> >>
> >> So I need to revert the change that I made?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> >>
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
RE: FormConditional
Posted by "Howard M. Lewis Ship" <hl...@comcast.net>.
I'm fine with that!
--
Howard M. Lewis Ship
Independent J2EE / Open-Source Java Consultant
Creator, Tapestry: Java Web Components
http://howardlewisship.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Erik Hatcher [mailto:erik@ehatchersolutions.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 10:45 PM
> To: Tapestry development
> Subject: Re: FormConditional
>
>
> Ok, so shouldn't we make it that way before 3.0 FINAL?
>
> On Feb 26, 2004, at 10:23 PM, Howard M. Lewis Ship wrote:
> > No, I think Mindbridge was saying he didn't make the Conditional
> > component's condition parameter
> > required, even though it should be.
> >
> > --
> > Howard M. Lewis Ship
> > Independent J2EE / Open-Source Java Consultant
> > Creator, Tapestry: Java Web Components
> > http://howardlewisship.com
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Erik Hatcher [mailto:erik@ehatchersolutions.com]
> >> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 8:53 PM
> >> To: Tapestry development
> >> Subject: Re: FormConditional
> >>
> >>
> >> On Feb 26, 2004, at 5:49 PM, Mindbridge wrote:
> >>> That is why 'condition' is not required in FormConditional
> >> -- it is not
> >>> required in Conditional either. It definitely does make
> >> sense to make
> >>> it
> >>> required, but since this was done during a beta (a violation in
> >>> itself), no
> >>> changes were made to the framework.
> >>
> >> So I need to revert the change that I made?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail:
> tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail:
> tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: FormConditional
Posted by Erik Hatcher <er...@ehatchersolutions.com>.
Ok, so shouldn't we make it that way before 3.0 FINAL?
On Feb 26, 2004, at 10:23 PM, Howard M. Lewis Ship wrote:
> No, I think Mindbridge was saying he didn't make the Conditional
> component's condition parameter
> required, even though it should be.
>
> --
> Howard M. Lewis Ship
> Independent J2EE / Open-Source Java Consultant
> Creator, Tapestry: Java Web Components
> http://howardlewisship.com
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Erik Hatcher [mailto:erik@ehatchersolutions.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 8:53 PM
>> To: Tapestry development
>> Subject: Re: FormConditional
>>
>>
>> On Feb 26, 2004, at 5:49 PM, Mindbridge wrote:
>>> That is why 'condition' is not required in FormConditional
>> -- it is not
>>> required in Conditional either. It definitely does make
>> sense to make
>>> it
>>> required, but since this was done during a beta (a violation in
>>> itself), no
>>> changes were made to the framework.
>>
>> So I need to revert the change that I made?
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
RE: FormConditional
Posted by "Howard M. Lewis Ship" <hl...@comcast.net>.
No, I think Mindbridge was saying he didn't make the Conditional component's condition parameter
required, even though it should be.
--
Howard M. Lewis Ship
Independent J2EE / Open-Source Java Consultant
Creator, Tapestry: Java Web Components
http://howardlewisship.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Erik Hatcher [mailto:erik@ehatchersolutions.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 8:53 PM
> To: Tapestry development
> Subject: Re: FormConditional
>
>
> On Feb 26, 2004, at 5:49 PM, Mindbridge wrote:
> > That is why 'condition' is not required in FormConditional
> -- it is not
> > required in Conditional either. It definitely does make
> sense to make
> > it
> > required, but since this was done during a beta (a violation in
> > itself), no
> > changes were made to the framework.
>
> So I need to revert the change that I made?
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: FormConditional
Posted by Erik Hatcher <er...@ehatchersolutions.com>.
On Feb 26, 2004, at 5:49 PM, Mindbridge wrote:
> That is why 'condition' is not required in FormConditional -- it is not
> required in Conditional either. It definitely does make sense to make
> it
> required, but since this was done during a beta (a violation in
> itself), no
> changes were made to the framework.
So I need to revert the change that I made?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: FormConditional
Posted by Jamie Orchard-Hays <ja...@dang.com>.
This would definitely be a large step forward in making this part of
Tapestry more user-friendly.
Jamie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mindbridge" <mi...@yahoo.com>
To: "Tapestry development" <ta...@jakarta.apache.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 5:49 PM
Subject: Re: FormConditional
>
> A side note: I happen to be of the same opinion as Howard that Conditional
> and FormCondition, as well as Foreach and ListEdit (and Table/FormTable,
> actually) need to be combined in single components. Basically, if the
> component is in a Form, it can switch to its "form" variant, otherwise
> render normally. Also, I think that there should be a parameter for
forcing
> it to render normally even within a form.
>
> Please note that this does not interfere with using the components in a
> non-HTML setting -- you would not have a Form in there, so a
> Foreach/ListEdit combination will always render as Foreach -- there will
be
> no HTML-specific code at all.
>
> There have been way too many problems mentioned in the user list that
would
> never occur if the the components have this behaviour. Perhaps the key to
> avoiding many new ones is making the way data is stored by ListEdit a bit
> more natural, but that's another discussion.
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: FormConditional
Posted by Mindbridge <mi...@yahoo.com>.
Hi,
Just as info:
I made FormConditional to be an exact copy of Conditional, so that you can
freely replace one with the other (later on removed the 'invert' parameter
for efficiency reasons, however).
That is why 'condition' is not required in FormConditional -- it is not
required in Conditional either. It definitely does make sense to make it
required, but since this was done during a beta (a violation in itself), no
changes were made to the framework.
A side note: I happen to be of the same opinion as Howard that Conditional
and FormCondition, as well as Foreach and ListEdit (and Table/FormTable,
actually) need to be combined in single components. Basically, if the
component is in a Form, it can switch to its "form" variant, otherwise
render normally. Also, I think that there should be a parameter for forcing
it to render normally even within a form.
Please note that this does not interfere with using the components in a
non-HTML setting -- you would not have a Form in there, so a
Foreach/ListEdit combination will always render as Foreach -- there will be
no HTML-specific code at all.
There have been way too many problems mentioned in the user list that would
never occur if the the components have this behaviour. Perhaps the key to
avoiding many new ones is making the way data is stored by ListEdit a bit
more natural, but that's another discussion.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Glen Stampoultzis" <gs...@iinet.net.au>
To: <ta...@jakarta.apache.org>
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 2:29 AM
Subject: FormConditional
>
> Just noticed that the condition parameter in FormConditional is not marked
> as required. It seems to me that it should be.
>
> Could a committer please make this one-liner? I'd send a patch but it
> hardly seems worth it.
>
>
>
> Glen Stampoultzis
> gstamp@iinet.net.au
> http://members.iinet.net.au/~gstamp/glen/
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org