I think that might work. I would try making a ThreadLocal binding and see
what happens. My plan was to bind them to an environmental so you could
change defaults by pushing a different environmental.
--
View this message in context:
http://tapestry.1045711.n5.nabble.com/Read-only-bindings-How-d
I started with wanting to create a Chain of service instances using an
ordered contribution point. Unlike usual though, the implementation isn't
custom each time. Instead, there's multiple repeat uses of an
implementation which does different work based on a String supplied it.
This String also hap
Here's an example
http://jumpstart.doublenegative.com.au/jumpstart/examples/input/morevalidation
--
View this message in context:
http://tapestry.1045711.n5.nabble.com/group-of-requred-fields-tp5720512p5720518.html
Sent from the Tapestry - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-
Yes, and if your read the javadoc for FieldValidator it says "Responsible for
validation of a single field."
http://tapestry.apache.org/current/apidocs/org/apache/tapestry5/FieldValidator.html
Since you need to validate a group of fields, you will need to use the
form's validate event. eg onValida
I have groups of fields with only one required field in the same group (any
but only one field from such group must be specified) It is all i need in
the BeanEditor where amount of fields vary on some conditions.
--
View this message in context:
http://tapestry.1045711.n5.nabble.com/group-of-re
Answering the queston in the subject: no, it's not possible to receive an
OrderedConfiguration id. Why do you want that?
--
Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org
For addi
Hi,
I have a form with two required fields for example: "age" and "dateOfBirth",
all of them are required, but if they are in special group, then only one of
them is required.
In my custom class CustomFieldBlocks.java which implements
PropertyOverrides, I should return field validator for the fiel
Just bumping this thread again.
Has anyone given any thought to my idea that literal: and symbol: bindings
could use a ThreadLocal for their value so that a mixin could update the
value?
--
View this message in context:
http://tapestry.1045711.n5.nabble.com/Read-only-bindings-How-do-I-set-the