cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marc Portier <...@outerthought.org>
Subject Re: [RT] Revisiting Woody's form definition
Date Wed, 30 Jul 2003 12:22:56 GMT


Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> Marc Portier wrote:
> 
>><SNIP/> 
>>
>>So what you are adding to the show is that the datatype 
>>(basetype) setting of the widget should be possibly derived from 
>>the binding path into the business object?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> 
>>now (currently) the form-model building happens before the 
>>business object is there, so it will need to be done based on the 
>>actual class-files (adding the classname of your objectmodel to 
>>the ).  Given the fact that jxpath also maps paths onto keys in 
>>hashmaps the usage of this design-time approach is likely to 
>>limit the possibilities of using the binding across structures 
>>like this.
> 
> 
> I think this has to be changed :) It should be done dynamically when
> the form is "rendered".
> 

this is fundamentally different to how it is done now

we seem to think there is some advantage for 'caching' the 
form-definition and instantiating the form from there

even worse: the flow examples to date are holding a reference to 
the form instance (just to give a popular usage example)

as is now (and redeamed useful) the form has an important 
function in analyzing the request-parameters and triggering the 
validation.... all of those are happening before even deciding 
which business object should be retrieved or if the form needs to 
be rendered again or not...

to support the general case woody kind of takes the existance of 
it's form-definition prior to the existence of any business 
object model (because it should be useable without it?)


> 
>>let us try to make up the correct if/then rules to assume the 
>>best approach, and make sure we understand the limitations...
>>
>>Careful documentation will need to ensure this doesn't become a 
>>mess IMHO
>>
> 
> Yes, of course.
> 
> 
>>I think we're saying the same, but unless we use the same words, 
>>we re bound to argue about the wrong things ;-)
>>
> 
> Yes, this is always the problem. But the good thing is: as long as
> we are only argueing via mail and don't sit in the same room, we 
> can't throw real things at each other...(just kidding).

LOL

> Now, one of the problems is that I'm still not that familiar with
> the woody terms, but on the other hand of a clear vision on how
> it should work. 
> 

well, you have a clear vision of what you want to do, and I try 
to map that on what woody does, and which sensible changes could 
be made based on the interesting features you bring

I think it is generaly good that someone is making suggestions 
outside of the current woody scope... makes us rethink some (but 
not everything ;-))

regards,
-marc=
-- 
Marc Portier                            http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center
Read my weblog at              http://radio.weblogs.com/0116284/
mpo@outerthought.org                              mpo@apache.org


Mime
View raw message