cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Reinhard Poetz <reinh...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [CForms] Question on storing form data
Date Tue, 01 Jun 2004 18:00:00 GMT
Bruno Dumon wrote:

>I see no reason to not ask this question on the mailing list? Anyway,
>see below.
>  
>

Point taken, I was so focused that you have the answer that I wrote 
directly to you.

Anyway, thanks Bruno and here the answer for all ;-)

>On Tue, 2004-06-01 at 13:38, Reinhard Pötz wrote:
>  
>
>>Hi Bruno,
>>
>>Recently I was asked why CForms use a widget-tree to store the form 
>>data.
>>    
>>
>
>why why why... why do we live?
>
>Everything can be done in different ways, using different approaches,
>and in the end you have to choose one, the one you think or feel would
>be best.
>
>  
>
>> I answered that we need strongly-typed data. The person asking me 
>>replied that we could have reached the same using a combination DOM tree 
>>and some kind of schema (XML Schema, RelaxNG).
>>    
>>
>
>I don't see where you would store the strongly typed data then? (or any
>of the state variables that are present in eg the Field class)
>
>A DOM tree is a pure data model. CForm's widgets contain both data and
>behaviour.
>
>The widget-tree API is easier: ie doing widget.getChild("otherwidget"):
>try to write the equivalent DOM-code for that.
>
>I also don't see much use of nor the datatypes, nor the structural
>validation that XML Schema offers for the purpose of end-users filling
>in forms.
>
>Sure there are all kinds of ways around it, ie annotating the schema
>with extra hints towards editing, making a custom DOM implementation,
>and so on. This would all be a very interesting exercise, but I'm paid
>to make working solutions, not to do research.
>
>In short: it isn't as simple as just taking a readily-available DOM and
>XML Schema implementation together. And any solution you could come up
>with would probably not be that far of from binding a DOM to a CForms
>form, except that the distinction would be blurred. But I'd be happy to
>be proved wrong of course!
>
>  
>
>> I searched the archives 
>>but can find the message, though I'm sure it was answered somewhere.
>>
>>Can you give me a hint?
>>
>>Many thanks in advance!
>>
>>Best,
>>Reinhard
>>    
>>
-- 
Reinhard


Mime
View raw message