cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sylvain Wallez <sylvain.wal...@anyware-tech.com>
Subject Re: Questions/Suggestions for Woody
Date Sat, 02 Aug 2003 14:23:51 GMT
Marc Portier wrote:

>
>
> Andreas Hochsteger wrote:
>
>> Hi!
>>
>> Most form examples in the current woody discussions assume, that the 
>> forms are
>> presented in HTML.
>> Is it (or will it be) possible to support different output formats 
>> while reusing most of the form definition?
>>
>> I'm interested in the following output formats:
>> * HTML with JavaScript (for Client-Side validation)
>> * Pure HTML
>> * XHTML + XForms
>> * WML
>> * PDF Forms (not that important)
>> * Word Forms (not that important either)
>> * Web Services (isn't that something XMLForm supported?)
>> * anything else?
>>
>> Can someone explain to me how such a scenario would look like (in 
>> terms of woody config files)?
>>
>
> (note: there is some changes underway so some of this might change)
>
> most of the above look like you need the correct **ML-specific version 
> of the form (supposing you can render all of the above from specific 
> XML gramars)
> I am not sure about PDF and Word Forms sending back valid HTTP request 
> params from within their respective clients, if they don't you 
> probably don't need to bother using woody at all
>
> but if they all do, then you'll have to make some decissions on smart 
> management of stylesheets and the like to get most if not everything 
> from one (at least a limited number of) source-file...
> I think it will take some of us actually doing these things before we 
> get a real feel to the matter (we plan on a smaller try-out with WML 
> in the not too distant future)
>
> Another issue I see however is the mismatch of number of widgets per 
> screen for each of these targets... this might call for splitting up a 
> lot more of these sources then the big XML dream was promising :-)
>
> Still Woody could at least do a best effort to ensure that all these 
> targets can be reached by applying the same competence mix somewhat. 


That's a concern I raised in the early discussions about Woody : the 
size and capabilities of devices such as phones or PDAs require a very 
different organisation of forms. As such, the templates will be 
different. Forms definitions will also be different, although we can 
think of having a singel model displayed by a single template for HTML 
and several ones for WML/PDA. 

>> Additionally I've got a suggestion for the many woody config files 
>> which my satisfy both simple and advanced forms:
>> For really simple forms it is better to have everything in one file.
>> For advanced forms this becomes easily unmaintainable and doesn't 
>> support SoC.
>> In this case it might be possible to swap certain parts out to other 
>> files and include these.
>
>
> As I understand it the current work Sylvain is doing is exactly about 
> finding this balance 


Exactly !

>> The only problem which might be with this solution is that this way 
>> all parts of the config have to be parsed during each request, even 
>> if they wouldn't have to.
>> But I don't know much of the woody internals to answer this question 
>> myself.
>
>
> It largely depends on the upcoming proposal, knowing Sylvain a bit 
> that will be quite well-balanced by his broad experience


Oh, Marc, you make me blush ;-)

> the future bringing in more of our different experiences will most 
> likely fine-tune that 


Yep. We never do it right the first time : it's only usage that tells us 
how it should be. Note that Woody already benefits from some XMLForm 
experience, and so the number of iterations may be more limited.

Sylvain

-- 
Sylvain Wallez                                  Anyware Technologies
http://www.apache.org/~sylvain           http://www.anyware-tech.com
{ XML, Java, Cocoon, OpenSource }*{ Training, Consulting, Projects }



Mime
View raw message