Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cocoon.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
Message-ID: <36113.10.0.0.5.1068114802.squirrel@ags01.agsoftware.dnsalias.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 04:33:22 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: [Woody-binding] wb:repeater unique-path
From: "Antonio Gallardo" <agallardo@agsoftware.dnsalias.com>
To: <dev@cocoon.apache.org>
In-Reply-To: <1068110481.2380.58.camel@yum.ot>
References: <35107.10.0.0.5.1068054707.squirrel@ags01.agsoftware.dnsalias.com>
        <1068058622.2380.39.camel@yum.ot>
        <1068060651.2381.42.camel@yum.ot>
        <1068110481.2380.58.camel@yum.ot>
Importance: Normal
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Bruno Dumon dijo:
> On Wed, 2003-11-05 at 20:30, Bruno Dumon wrote:
>> On Wed, 2003-11-05 at 19:57, Bruno Dumon wrote:
>> > On Wed, 2003-11-05 at 18:51, Antonio Gallardo wrote:
>> > > Hi:
>> > >
>> > > I am trying to do a "form.save(bean)" from an empty displayed
>> form.I have 2 days with this sample and still not working. :-(
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > My problem is that inside the "repeater" there is only 1 value
>> (res_id) of datatype integer.
>> > >
>> > > Binding just save the first 2 values and an empty repeater.
>> >
>> > Is the res_id field a field that the user can edit? The current
>> repeater-binding assumes that new rows are those with an empty id
>> field (res_id your case). Thus if these are editable by the user and
>> the user puts a value in them, the repeater binding will not detect
>> that these are new rows.
>> >
>> > However, it is of course possible to implement alternative
>> > repeater-binding strategies. One that's also available is
>> > wb:simple-repeater (see javadoc of the class
>> > SimpleRepeaterJXPathBindingBuilder). This binding works by first
>> removing all items, and the adding all the items in the repeater.
>>
>> After having a look at the source code, I'm afraid that binding
>> currently only works for XML documents.
>
> Sylvain, would you mind if I changed the simple-repeater binding so that
> its configuration lines up more with that of the other repeater binding?
> I'm thinking of something like this:
>
> <wb:simple-repeater>
>   <wb:on-bind>
>     ...
>   </wb:on-bind>
>   <wb:on-insert-row>
>     ...
>   </wb:on-insert-row>
> </wb:simple-repeater>
>
> The wb:on-insert-row element would be optional, if not specified the
> binding would work as it is now (ie rely on JXPath to create the path).

I thought adding a new repeater will add more complexity to Cocoon forms.
Better will be to add an attribute in <wb:repeater> that will allow the
behavior or not. I propose something like:

unique-change="true" [default false]

If set to true, then the unique field can be changed.

Is this correct?

Best Regards,

Antonio Gallardo