4 Answers, 1 is accepted
0
Hi Kenneth Siewers,
Yes, you can use _SetValue(...) instead of set_value(...)
Sincerely yours,
Dimo
the Telerik team
Instantly find answers to your questions on the new Telerik Support Portal.
Check out the tips for optimizing your support resource searches.
Yes, you can use _SetValue(...) instead of set_value(...)
Sincerely yours,
Dimo
the Telerik team
Instantly find answers to your questions on the new Telerik Support Portal.
Check out the tips for optimizing your support resource searches.
0
Bent
Top achievements
Rank 2
answered on 15 Apr 2009, 04:54 PM
I guess I'm using some internal function then? Is there any danger in using function prefixed with "_" ? Normally I try to avoid using such methods as I don't know if I'm messing up some internal state etc.
0
Bent
Top achievements
Rank 2
answered on 15 Apr 2009, 05:16 PM
Okay, I've tested the solution, but it seems like there's a problem.
When the textbox is blurred it fires the event even though the values hasn't changed. I guess I can see the problem, as the set_value probably initializes the state, which now isn't set.
I can see the eventargs contains old and new value and old_value is an empty string.
When the textbox is blurred it fires the event even though the values hasn't changed. I guess I can see the problem, as the set_value probably initializes the state, which now isn't set.
I can see the eventargs contains old and new value and old_value is an empty string.
0
Bent
Top achievements
Rank 2
answered on 15 Apr 2009, 05:23 PM
I guess I've figured it out. If I set the _initialValue = _SetValue the problem goes away. It's not pretty but it works.
It would be nice to have more control over the event triggering...
It would be nice to have more control over the event triggering...