I agree and understand that we need a way to reset a value back to its default. I think we
should explore whether or not there is a better way, especially if there is a general
consensus that the unset checkbox is confusing.
On Sep 11, 2012, at 12:18 PM, John Mazzitelli <mazz(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> I have a question. Do we need the unset column at all?
The unset checkbox has always been a problem since it can be confusing what it means.
However, we need a way to support being able to unset a value so it falls back to its
default value (which most times is not an empty value). This unset checkbox was the way we
implemented that requirement.
For example, how do you distinguish a property value that is set, but is an empty string
versus a value that is not set and whose value therefore becomes a non-empty default value
(an internal default value that the code would use if the property is not set)?
Not sure I understand. The editor renders a text field with a non-empty default value. I
edit the field, changing it to an empty string. So is the problem knowing/remembering that
I have actually edited that text field?
This is the problem the unset checkbox attempted to solve.
_______________________________________________
rhq-devel mailing list
rhq-devel(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/rhq-devel