cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marc Portier <...@outerthought.org>
Subject Re: [cforms] refactoring questions (was Re: cvs commit: cocoon-2.1/src/blocks/forms/java/org/apache/cocoon/forms/formmodel Struct.java Messages.java Repeater.java MultiValueField.java AbstractContainerWidget.java Output.java Upload.java Action.java Form.java ContainerDelegate.java AbstractWidget.java Field.java Union.java BooleanField.java Widget.java)
Date Mon, 26 Apr 2004 10:08:19 GMT


Sylvain Wallez wrote:
> Bruno Dumon wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, 2004-04-26 at 10:43, Marc Portier wrote:
>>  
>>
>>> Sylvain Wallez wrote:
>>>   
>>>
>>>> Marc Portier wrote:
>>>>     
>>>>
>>>>> Sylvain Wallez wrote:
>>>>>       
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>>>> - if we allow "fi:styling" in the definition (which is needed IMO), 
>>>> we must still retain the possibility to override it in the template. 
>>>> The associated logic on the template side will be much more easy to 
>>>> implement.
>>>>     
>>>
>>> didn't think of this yet,
>>> in any case we will need some overriding/merging rules for the 
>>> @defines/@extends thing as well, I guess similar ones should apply 
>>> for letting template override its definnition on certain fields
>>>   
>>
>>
>> Just curious: are you planning on doing the "extending" by merging the
>> definitions on the XML level?
>>  
>>
> 


neuh, not at all, just sounds like that since the fi:* displaydata from 
this thread would more use that pattern

I was just refering to the fact that from a user POV the same kind of 
rules should apply...

> Sounds weird... I would better consider this by having the definition 
> with @extend delegate some calls to the definition it extends.
> 

yeah, but I'ld like the definitions to become immutable to make sure 
we're not making errors here in this definition-reuse system (you don't 
want to be accidentally changing the base-definition when you're just 
cloning/extending it)

also it kinda feels more like the business of the builder then of the 
definition itself to know about these merging rules... so as far as I 
see now I would rather change the interface of the builders to also have 
a 'WidgetDefinition base' argument

wdyt?
-marc=
-- 
Marc Portier                            http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center
Read my weblog at                http://blogs.cocoondev.org/mpo/
mpo@outerthought.org                              mpo@apache.org

Mime
View raw message