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 work to do before marking it stable
Date Wed, 03 Nov 2004 17:37:23 GMT
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Here's the result of the discussion at the GT about the work needed for 
> CForms to reach stable state. Thanks to Pier for being the secretary. He 
> did it so well ;-P
> 
> Flowscript integration:
> - don't use JS wrapping classes for widgets: they introduce 
> yet-another-API which is sometimes confusing.
> - update the widgets' java public API so that it's more "Rhino-friendly" 
> (check JavaBean conformance and add accessors where needed)
> - implement an equivalent to the bookmark feature of V2, by a function 
> property of the form that gets called at each request roundtrip
> - add helper methods to the Form class to create event listeners from JS 
> functions
> - restrict the "cocoon" object that's available in the event handlers so 
> that it does not provide response-related methods (sendPage etc)
> 
> Java code:
> - ignore the "action-command" attribute which is currently useless 
> except for repeater-actions and row-actions
> - implement widget states (a patch has been provided for this which I 
> will take care of)
> 
> Misc:
> - write a form definition schema so that definitions can be optionally 
> validated.
> - flatten the CForm-related component in cocoon.xconf. This will ease 
> the transition to a non-Avalon container
> 
> 
> There was also a discussion also after my presentation on union & class 
> about renaming these widgets to something more meaningful to people 
> having no C knowledge. The renaming we came up to is as follows:
> - <fd:union> --> <fd:choose>
> - <fd:case> --> <fd:when>
> - <fd:struct> --> <fd:group>
> - <fd:class> --> <fd:macro>
> - <fd:new id=""> --> <fd:expand macro="">
> 
> The renaming of class/new to macro/expand is mandated by the fact that a 
> <fd:new> inlines the contents of the class definition without an 
> enclosing container.
> 
> Sylvain


What's the status of the binding framework? Found these mails from march: 
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=108059916300004&r=1&w=2

At least, on-delete-bean is missing, isn't it?

-- 
Reinhard

Mime
View raw message