From: Mike S. <ms...@md...> - 2007-01-25 01:55:35
|
Does anyone use fullSubmit = false successfully for anything? It seems very problematic unless we provide replacements of for all of the input elements, which is kind of annoying. I'm contemplating either defaulting it to true or just completing removing the option ....... comments? |
From: Georg T. <tu...@ma...> - 2007-01-25 08:29:25
|
Mike, When I first started playing with the framework, I thought if I could ever use fullSubmit = false in any of our projects, and could not find such example. I see no real use for it too. cheers gt On Jan 25, 2007, at 2:55 AM, Mike Schrag wrote: > Does anyone use fullSubmit = false successfully for anything? It > seems very problematic unless we provide replacements of for all of > the input elements, which is kind of annoying. I'm contemplating > either defaulting it to true or just completing removing the > option ....... comments? > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > --- > Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT > Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to > share your > opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash > http://www.techsay.com/default.php? > page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV > _______________________________________________ > Wonder-disc mailing list > Won...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wonder-disc Georg Tuparev Tuparev Technologies Klipper 13 1186 VR Amstelveen The Netherlands Mobile: +31-6-55798196 |
From: Mike S. <ms...@md...> - 2007-01-25 14:09:19
|
By the way, the INTENT of fullSubmit = true was that you could have a dependent list inside of a form, and it allows you to JUST submit the individual changing pulldown menu item without submitting the rest of the form. The reason for this is that the rest of the form will often be in an invalid state and submitting the entire form just for the changing pulldown menu item would generate validation errors. Unfortunately when I wrote, I didn't realize that WO input field elements (WOTextField, etc) consider the non-existence of a key in the request values to be the same thing as a null. This meant that unless we added versions of all the input fields that checks ! isAjaxMessage(..), it would have the exact same effect anyway (which is what it does now). Oh well. ms On Jan 25, 2007, at 3:28 AM, Georg Tuparev wrote: > Mike, > > When I first started playing with the framework, I thought if I could > ever use fullSubmit = false in any of our projects, and could not > find such example. I see no real use for it too. > > cheers > > gt > > > On Jan 25, 2007, at 2:55 AM, Mike Schrag wrote: > >> Does anyone use fullSubmit = false successfully for anything? It >> seems very problematic unless we provide replacements of for all of >> the input elements, which is kind of annoying. I'm contemplating >> either defaulting it to true or just completing removing the >> option ....... comments? >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> - >> --- >> Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT >> Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to >> share your >> opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn >> cash >> http://www.techsay.com/default.php? >> page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV >> _______________________________________________ >> Wonder-disc mailing list >> Won...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wonder-disc > > Georg Tuparev > Tuparev Technologies > Klipper 13 > 1186 VR Amstelveen > The Netherlands > Mobile: +31-6-55798196 > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > --- > Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT > Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to > share your > opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash > http://www.techsay.com/default.php? > page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV > _______________________________________________ > Wonder-disc mailing list > Won...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wonder-disc |
From: Anjo K. <kr...@lo...> - 2007-01-25 14:29:21
|
Am 25.01.2007 um 15:08 schrieb Mike Schrag: > This meant that > unless we added versions of all the input fields that checks ! > isAjaxMessage(..), it would have the exact same effect anyway (which > is what it does now). So? We already have subclasses for every WOInput... see ERXPatcher. Should be a piece of cake to override all the invokeActions or takeValuesFromRequests Cheers, Anjo |
From: Mike S. <ms...@md...> - 2007-01-25 14:41:32
|
The only one that scares me looking at this is WOCheckBox, because the geniuses at W3C decided that an unchecked checkbox should just remove itself from the list of query parameters, so null checkbox = uncheck checkbox. This means if you have a checkbox on a form with a partial submit, null actually DOES = false. Though we could make the patched checkbox maybe have a known value that the patched class interprets as "ignore" (vs false) that could get put into the request parameters from the javascript side ..... I'll have to contemplate this one some. On Jan 25, 2007, at 9:29 AM, Anjo Krank wrote: > > Am 25.01.2007 um 15:08 schrieb Mike Schrag: > >> This meant that >> unless we added versions of all the input fields that checks ! >> isAjaxMessage(..), it would have the exact same effect anyway (which >> is what it does now). > > So? We already have subclasses for every WOInput... see ERXPatcher. > Should be a piece of cake to override all the invokeActions or > takeValuesFromRequests > > Cheers, Anjo |