Channels
#tornadofx
- e
edvin
03/01/2017, 10:09 AMWe could let form have a default ValidationContext, which can be used when you don't have a backing ViewModel for the fields. - e
edvin
03/01/2017, 10:09 AMBut that might get messy... - r
ron
03/01/2017, 10:11 AMI was actually thinking about that during a meeting - e
edvin
03/01/2017, 10:11 AMI don't want there to be confusion between a ValidationContext on a Form and the ValidationContext for a ViewModel.. - r
ron
03/01/2017, 10:12 AMMake the form validation aware then the buttons can react to that - r
ron
03/01/2017, 10:13 AMThere are several use cases where you will not use a view model - e
edvin
03/01/2017, 10:14 AMYes. Will think about this while getting some lunch 🙂 - e
edvin
03/01/2017, 10:15 AMWe could support something like a viewmodel that you just declare inline: - e
edvin
03/01/2017, 10:15 AMIt would take a vararg list of properties that it connects directly. - r
ron
03/01/2017, 10:15 AMthat would work - e
edvin
03/01/2017, 10:15 AMThen you have validation the normal way for free and you can call
etc.model.commit() - e
edvin
03/01/2017, 10:15 AMThat would be pretty sweet. - r
ron
03/01/2017, 10:16 AMI would use that - e
edvin
03/01/2017, 10:16 AMThere are some questions that needs to be answered about how binding would work etc. - e
edvin
03/01/2017, 10:17 AMReally hope we can make it, it would make adhoc stuff like this much easier. - e
edvin
03/01/2017, 10:18 AMAnd it wouldn't feel like a hack. - e
edvin
03/01/2017, 10:19 AMI think the properties might need to be declared on the ViewModel, so that the ViewModel is the
for the properties.bean - r
ron
03/01/2017, 10:22 AMI like how the keepassFX usecases lead to tornadoFX functionality😬 1 - e
edvin
03/01/2017, 10:23 AM@User uploaded a file: This works without changes - e
edvin
03/01/2017, 10:27 AMA problem with your approach above is that the textfield wouldn't have anything to bind against. It needs a property. - e
edvin
03/01/2017, 10:27 AMMy sample above is pretty good already, but we could add some extensions to
so you can create properties off of it easier.ValidationContext - r
ron
03/01/2017, 10:28 AMyour last example seems to be close to perfect - e
edvin
03/01/2017, 10:28 AMYeah, it's not much left to improve. What we could do is: - e
edvin
03/01/2017, 10:28 AM
or something like that.val reason = model.stringProperty() - e
edvin
03/01/2017, 10:29 AMI actually like that thing above, let's just keep this for now, and I'll document it in the guide. - r
ron
03/01/2017, 10:29 AMok - e
edvin
03/01/2017, 10:29 AMHaha, I'm pretty happy with that this was possible with no change, just needed to think about it differently. Very nice, Ron! - r
ron
03/01/2017, 10:29 AMI will adapt tonight that also means the vbox can disappear