On Thu, 2003-07-31 at 17:25, Marc Portier wrote: <snip/> > > As I see it now, the integration is not trivial (but possible) > Your bean seems to provide an alternative to the declarative > woody-widget tree (form-model) > > We could argue about the woody-widget tree being the real CORE of > woody, so the 'not trivial' gets to have some meaning I guess :-) > > 'Integration' then becomes making the form-model pluggable which > would come down to > 1/ making the woody-template-transformer can pull out the values > using jxpath rather then using the widget API > 2/ and the other way around the form.process(request) needs to > evolve to Dywel.process(bean-or-widgetTree, request); which could > again use some jxpath-like approach to perform its setValues... > > not trivial, maybe possible, useful?
_very_ quick skim-read, but: didn't you just reinvent XMLForm? -- Bruno Dumon http://outerthought.org/ Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
