True, my concern is that we'll find that every use of required=true also has acceptNull=false, in which case we add complexity without providing value.
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 12:12 PM, Filip S. Adamsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > +1 on something like that. > > -Filip > > On 2008-06-24 19:48, Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo wrote: >> >> Em Tue, 24 Jun 2008 14:32:15 -0300, Matt Kerr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> escreveu: >> >>> why not specify whether params allow null - rather than break things ? >>> default to the old behavior. >>> >>> it's not uncommon to have a null param - dunno why it would be >>> different in a component. >> >> Agreed 100%. Required = some value must be given to the parameter. Not >> null = some not null value must be given. Required != not null. >> >> We could add some like this to @Parameter and support it in tapestry-core >> easily: >> >> boolean acceptNull() default true; >> >> Then anyone writing components would get the automatic null value checking >> if wanted or needed without disrupting old code or changing how parameters >> work. >> >> Thiago >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Howard M. Lewis Ship Creator Apache Tapestry and Apache HiveMind --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
