cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Vadim Gritsenko <>
Subject Re: Widget states: let's do it (was Re: CForms making widgets invisible)
Date Wed, 22 Sep 2004 15:10:47 GMT
Sylvain Wallez wrote:

> Claudius Spellmann wrote:
>> 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.

So, we will have two different types of hidden? One is normal html 
type="hidden", which *reads* from request, and another is form's hidden, 
which does not?

> 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?



View raw message