Marc Portier wrote: > <SNIP/> > > So what you are adding to the show is that the datatype > (basetype) setting of the widget should be possibly derived from > the binding path into the business object? Yes.
> > now (currently) the form-model building happens before the > business object is there, so it will need to be done based on the > actual class-files (adding the classname of your objectmodel to > the ). Given the fact that jxpath also maps paths onto keys in > hashmaps the usage of this design-time approach is likely to > limit the possibilities of using the binding across structures > like this. I think this has to be changed :) It should be done dynamically when the form is "rendered". > > let us try to make up the correct if/then rules to assume the > best approach, and make sure we understand the limitations... > > Careful documentation will need to ensure this doesn't become a > mess IMHO > Yes, of course. > > I think we're saying the same, but unless we use the same words, > we re bound to argue about the wrong things ;-) > Yes, this is always the problem. But the good thing is: as long as we are only argueing via mail and don't sit in the same room, we can't throw real things at each other...(just kidding). Now, one of the problems is that I'm still not that familiar with the woody terms, but on the other hand of a clear vision on how it should work. > <SNIP/> > > it does... but as mentioned above I think we could reuse the > form-manager and only need to reconsider the rules in the > datatyping of things... > > I'ld rather have us not branch up too early and start to live > next to each other > Yes, of course! That's why I dry to explain my ideas although I don't have a clue on how woody works. > > thx for this clarification, I hope I returned the favour > Yes, sure! Regards Carsten
