cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Claudius Spellmann <claudius.spellm...@juwimm.com>
Subject Re: Widget states: let's do it (was Re: CForms making widgets invisible)
Date Wed, 22 Sep 2004 14:45:36 GMT
Ok just two more questions:

1) The disabled state: Is it enough to just grey out disabled widgets 
and return any previously selected values or schould the widget-value be 
null when a widget is disabled.

2) Should forms also have states so that a whole form can be disabled or 
hidden.

greets
Claudius

Sylvain Wallez schrieb:

> Claudius Spellmann wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I've created a patch to set a visibilitystatus for widgets. This 
>> means that all widgets can be set visible or invisible on a form when 
>> a form is created or using flowscript.
>
>
>
> This has already been discussed here: we need widget states. However, 
> state isn't limited to visible/invisible. We also need states like 
> active/inactive.
>
> AFAIR, the list of states we came up to was:
> - active : the current behaviour
> - disabled: the widget is displayed, but its value (or sub-widgets in 
> the case of containers) isn't read from the request.
> - hidden: the widget isn't displayed, and of course it's value isn't 
> read from the request.
>
> States should be inherited by child widgets, taking into account the 
> following state priority:
>  active < disabled < hidden.
>
> That means that if a repeater is hidden, its children will be hidden 
> also even if their own state is active or disabled.
>
> We also need to be able to set an intial state in the form definition 
> (default being "active"). I propose a common "state" attribute for 
> this, available on all widget types, e.g.
> <fd:repeater id="foo" state="hidden">
>  ...
> </fd:repeater>
>
> We've discussed this many times and it appears it is a real need now, 
> so let's do it right now.
>
> Are we ok with this definition?
>
> Sylvain
>


Mime
View raw message