cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matthias Epheser <matthias.ephe...@gmx.at>
Subject Re: [CForms] Streaming out widget attributes?
Date Thu, 03 Aug 2006 12:16:14 GMT
Antonio Gallardo schrieb:
> Sylvain Wallez escribió:
>> - since only CForms has Ajax integration, people are over-using it for 
>> presentation purposes (e.g. paginated repeater)
> I agree with you, mixing binding with form definition is not good. We 
> want to keep it separated. However, I think it is a first implementation 
> wich show us a way to implement a paginated repeater after all it is not 
> released yet. It is a work in progress. Is not fair to blame to a first 
> draft implementation.

I had my thoughts whether the mixing is appropriate or not from the 
start, so thank you for your feedback.

As Simone mentioned in his reply, our main goal was to achieve the 
lazy-loading of pages. I agree that using the standard binding to fetch 
all rows and just display a subset (page) of them could be easily done 
with some simple xsl and without changes in the repeater implementation 
at all. But we are not focused just on presentation. Our implementation 
is a try to load only the row-data we need to support persistency 
frameworks and large collections in general. Currently lazy loading 
could be achieved without changes in the controller except using the 
advanced collection. Editing data is also possible yet, adding and 
deleting of rows will follow.

So concerning this I think pageSave/pageLoad has to be done in the 
binding because we have to control the doLoad()-method and prevent it 
from fetching and creating all rows from the start. To ensure seperation 
of concerns we can maybe try to move everything to the binding.

Currently the form-definition is used to enable pagination and and 
setting pageSize and so on. This configuration tag could be easily moved 
to the binding definition file without problems. The binding registers 
its pageStorage object in the repeater object just for one purpose. In 
the change-page-action I need to call pageSave and pageLoad. If I manage 
to access these methods there directly without 
repeater.getStorage().doPageLoad() in a decent way, everything would 
work just using the binding and without touching the definition and the 
repeater itself.

Please let me know what you think about it or if I'm getting something 
completely wrong.

Matthias




Mime
View raw message