cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tim Larson <>
Subject [Question] Re: cforms plans, templating engines, etc.
Date Wed, 10 Nov 2004 17:15:03 GMT
On Sun, Nov 07, 2004 at 09:29:40PM +0100, Sylvain Wallez wrote:
> Tim Larson wrote:
> >On Fri, Nov 05, 2004 at 09:58:43PM +0100, Sylvain Wallez wrote:
> >>Tim Larson wrote:
> >concerns before.  I will try to take some time this weekend
> >to see how to resolve this.  I really do not want to revert
> >the code if we can just improve it instead.  I just feel
> >pressured by the short time before we plan to release.
> So let's discuss your concerns. I started looking at Swan, and it seems 
> to me that what's needed is simply and additional "output" state.
> Do you want me also to explain more clearly how states are implemented 
> and behave (lacked the time to write some docs)?

I finaly got to look at the widget states implementation,
and even port parts of Swan to use it (working on porting
the rest now).  I see some things we can improve, but it
looks good overall because of the separation between how
we set states and how we query them.  This will allow
us to add more fine-grained state setting logic without
disturbing existing state querying logic (if we find we
need these changes in the future.)  I will comment on
the possible improvements later when I have collected
my thoughts more, since they should not affect back-
compatibility anyways.

Is this change acceptable for keeping in the trunk and
including in the stable branch?  (The part about changing
from isAcceptingInputs() to isValidatingValues() in
the widgets' validate() methods?)  Currently both methods
will return the same value, but this will allow us to
split the logic later if needed.

> Well, you've got a point here: yes, you should probably explain more 
> what you want to do. The group's feedback will strengthen the ideas and 
> turn them into a collective creation rather than a one-man show.

Agreed.  I will update my wiki page to explain my current
plans, so they can be discussed, changed, and improved :)

> Well, I only saw changes to the template transformer, and no 
> corresponding change in the form model, hence my impression you were 
> writing a new template language. I also do not consider the 
> WoodyScratchpad page a formal specification: we discussed for a while 
> there, wrote down some ideas, and let them apart for quite a long time 
> with still a lot of open questions and things to formalize.

> Great, I'm glad we solved some misunderstandings :-)

Me too :)

--Tim Larson

View raw message