cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Carsten Ziegeler" <>
Subject RE: [RT] Revisiting Woody's form definition
Date Wed, 30 Jul 2003 12:31:41 GMT
Marc Portier wrote

> > 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?)
Hmm, ok, caching does not prevent to have some dynamic elements
in it. You can cache, let's say 89%, and 11% are calculated dynamically.

A question I was always asking myself is: how does woody handle
user dependent forms? Which means, if the same form is used inside
a user session and for example the user can edit his personal
information. So you have a Form object for each user but use
of course the same form description. Is this possible? (I guess
so, but just want to make sure).

> > 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
And I really appreciate that!

> I think it is generaly good that someone is making suggestions 
> outside of the current woody scope... makes us rethink some (but 
> not everything ;-))
I ignore this last remark in the brackets :) you know, sometimes I'm
simply blind and deaf. :)


View raw message