Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cocoon.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
Message-ID: <40739A30.3040209@outerthought.org>
Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2004 08:05:36 +0200
From: Marc Portier <mpo@outerthought.org>
Organization: Outerthought
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5 (Windows/20040207)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
Subject: Re: [cforms] Radio buttons across repeater
References: <429452AA-7399-11D8-8979-000A95908E0E@wrinkledog.com>
 <E85630C2-73C9-11D8-8979-000A95908E0E@wrinkledog.com>
 <40516E9A.4000909@outerthought.org> <4071CD8A.4030203@gmx.de>
 <40723B54.5090300@outerthought.org> <40725A48.6080004@outerthought.org>
 <40733090.8070209@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <40733090.8070209@gmx.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


Joerg Heinicke wrote:
> On 06.04.2004 09:20, Marc Portier wrote:
> 
>> Joerg,
>>
>> I realize that 'resting my case' is not enough...
>>
>> some ideas:
>> this sounds like the operation 'selecting a row' should be an 
>> intrinsic feature of the repeater-widget
> 
> 
> Yes, sounds reasonable.
> 
>> In light of the above we could even consider sending 
>> repeaterID.radioID=row-identity (which would require to 
>> serialize-to-string somehow this identity?)
> 
> 
> This not IMO ;-) I completely separate backend IDs from row IDs as the 
> former ones might often be database IDs (general security concern). So 
> my binding ATM often has a @unique-row-id="id" (still 2.1.4), but ID is 
> only a wd:output in the definition and is not referred in the template. 
> At least for the moment I have no use case where the mapping from row ID 
> to backend ID does not match my requirements and so I'm hiding the 
> backend IDs from the user.
> 

+1

I'm still running around the hot soup of repeater-binding (in my head)
and your scenario (which I think is quite widespread) of the wd:output 
that never gets styled is for me an additional reason for having an 
intrinsic Identity property on each Reater.Row

with it you wouldn't even need to declare it in your form-definition 
since it really only has a purpose for the binding, and actually never 
really is a true/valid widget, or is it?

regards,
-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