Howard Lewis Ship wrote:
>
> Remember that you can place @Inject on the constructor that should be
> used if there's any ambiguity.
>
That is what I was looking for. Thanks :)
and +1 for adding that to FAQ :)
--
View this message in context:
http://tapestry-users.832.n2.nabble.com/T5-2-Const
Hi,
Am Dienstag, den 05.10.2010, 09:22 -0700 schrieb Howard Lewis Ship:
> Remember that you can place @Inject on the constructor that should be
> used if there's any ambiguity.
I think, this would make a great FAQ entry. I can only speak for myself,
but I wasn't aware that this was already possib
] Constructor issue
Hi all.
While preparing small showcase app, odd problem came out. When I created
domain object with two constructors (first was default NOOP, second one had
two parameters string and enum, it was meant for manual initialization only)
and tried to use it with beaneditform I
Remember that you can place @Inject on the constructor that should be
used if there's any ambiguity.
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 9:22 AM, Howard Lewis Ship wrote:
> Your are correct and this has been the behavior since at least 5.1.
>
> On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 9:21 AM, Josh Canfield wrote:
>>>
>>> Bea
Your are correct and this has been the behavior since at least 5.1.
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 9:21 AM, Josh Canfield wrote:
>>
>> BeanEditor (used internally for BeanEditForm) uses the no-args constructor
>> if it exists. I apologize for not making this distinction clear.
>>
>
> I'm looking at the 5
>
> BeanEditor (used internally for BeanEditForm) uses the no-args constructor
> if it exists. I apologize for not making this distinction clear.
>
I'm looking at the 5.2 source and BeanEditor uses the BeanModel to get
the instance, calls "newInstance()" which also uses the
ObjectLocator.autobuild
> "Often, the BeanEditForm can create the object as needed (assuming a public,
> no arguments constructor). "
I believe the java docs are out of date. The change happened in a
dependent class and the docs don't reflect the change. As Thiago said,
the current strategy is to try to make the most comp
On Tue, 05 Oct 2010 12:17:46 -0300, Michal Gruca
wrote:
I must disagree.
But first to clarify. I described two cases.
1. BeanEditForm that cannot instantiate my object
BeanEditor (used internally for BeanEditForm) uses the no-args constructor
if it exists. I apologize for not making this
I must disagree.
But first to clarify. I described two cases.
1. BeanEditForm that cannot instantiate my object
2. Same issue for SSO creating java.util.Date
AD 1.
Quote from BeanEditForm doc:
"Often, the BeanEditForm can create the object as needed (assuming a public,
no arguments constructor).
On Tue, 05 Oct 2010 10:09:09 -0300, Michal Gruca
wrote:
Hi all.
Hi!
After removing parametrized constructor,
error disappeared. It's bit odd IMHO.
That's documented behavior:
http://tapestry.apache.org/tapestry5.1/guide/appstate.html. This page is
for 5.1, but it should be the same
Hi all.
While preparing small showcase app, odd problem came out. When I created
domain object with two constructors (first was default NOOP, second one had
two parameters string and enum, it was meant for manual initialization only)
and tried to use it with beaneditform I received exception that
11 matches
Mail list logo
