Marc Portier dijo: > some attempt/proposal: > definition-model declares field: > case A: nothing special -> defaults to read-write > case B: as being read-only > case C: specific as read-write > > binding declared on field > case 1: nothing special -> defaults to inherited from the field > definition? > case 2: as being read-only > case 3: specific as read-write > > > then what happens > A.1 == C.3 == C.1 == A.3: full read-write on all stages > > B.2: data flows only from backend up to the browser > B.1: binding level reads from the field definition that it is > read-only and inherits the behaviour --> B.2 > > B.3: binding level will save although the end user could not change > > A.2 = C.2: allow user change, but don't save back to the object-model > (which sounds awkward? I don't see a case needing this ATM)
Sorry to said that but this is very complex. :( I think we have only 2 case on every one, the nothing special case is a normal default. Best Regards, Antonio Gallardo
