making

[Ryan Sonnek <ry...@gmail.com>]

can these methods be made public?
AbstractPropertyModel#propertyExpression
AbstractPropertyModel#propertyType

I'm open to suggestions, but what I'm trying to do is build a behavior
that inspects the model to attach client side validation.  I'm trying
to extract the PropertyModel expression to lookup annotations for that
field.  If there's a better way to do this, I'm open to ideas!

Thanks,
Ryan

Re: making

[Ryan Sonnek <ry...@gmail.com>]

Yeah, I'm talking about the code for the wicket-hibernate-behavior project.
http://wicket-stuff.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/wicket-stuff/trunk/wicketstuff-hibernate-behavior/

I was writing it against 1.2.x, but just upgraded it to 1.3 last night.

Again, I'm open to "another way" to do this if it's preferred to not
change these methods.

On 5/9/07, Eelco Hillenius <ee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Are you talking about 1.2 code Ryan?
>
> I wouldn't have a problem exposing such. But before we do, I think we
> should decide on an interface that exposes that and that can be used
> by more models.
>
> A related thing is something we had a little brain storm about after a
> comment in Matej's ApacheCon session, which is to have a way to expose
> the target type of a model (optinionally, if the model can/ wants) so
> that e.g. we can get rid of that ugly type argument in text
> components. That should probably result in an interface, e.g.
> IModelTypeAware or such.
>
> Eelco
>
>
> On 5/9/07, Johan Compagner <jc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > but what do you really need inside that client side validation?
> > what do you want to do with the propertyExpression?
> >
> > johan
> >
> >
> > On 5/9/07, Ryan Sonnek <ry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > can these methods be made public?
> > > AbstractPropertyModel#propertyExpression
> > > AbstractPropertyModel#propertyType
> > >
> > > I'm open to suggestions, but what I'm trying to do is build a behavior
> > > that inspects the model to attach client side validation.  I'm trying
> > > to extract the PropertyModel expression to lookup annotations for that
> > > field.  If there's a better way to do this, I'm open to ideas!
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Ryan
> > >
> >
>

Re: making

[Eelco Hillenius <ee...@gmail.com>]

Are you talking about 1.2 code Ryan?

I wouldn't have a problem exposing such. But before we do, I think we
should decide on an interface that exposes that and that can be used
by more models.

A related thing is something we had a little brain storm about after a
comment in Matej's ApacheCon session, which is to have a way to expose
the target type of a model (optinionally, if the model can/ wants) so
that e.g. we can get rid of that ugly type argument in text
components. That should probably result in an interface, e.g.
IModelTypeAware or such.

Eelco


On 5/9/07, Johan Compagner <jc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> but what do you really need inside that client side validation?
> what do you want to do with the propertyExpression?
>
> johan
>
>
> On 5/9/07, Ryan Sonnek <ry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > can these methods be made public?
> > AbstractPropertyModel#propertyExpression
> > AbstractPropertyModel#propertyType
> >
> > I'm open to suggestions, but what I'm trying to do is build a behavior
> > that inspects the model to attach client side validation.  I'm trying
> > to extract the PropertyModel expression to lookup annotations for that
> > field.  If there's a better way to do this, I'm open to ideas!
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Ryan
> >
>

Re: making

[Johan Compagner <jc...@gmail.com>]

but what do you really need inside that client side validation?
what do you want to do with the propertyExpression?

johan


On 5/9/07, Ryan Sonnek <ry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> can these methods be made public?
> AbstractPropertyModel#propertyExpression
> AbstractPropertyModel#propertyType
>
> I'm open to suggestions, but what I'm trying to do is build a behavior
> that inspects the model to attach client side validation.  I'm trying
> to extract the PropertyModel expression to lookup annotations for that
> field.  If there's a better way to do this, I'm open to ideas!
>
> Thanks,
> Ryan
>