On Thu, 2003-09-11 at 22:32, Timothy Larson wrote: > --- Bruno Dumon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > a first quick reaction (the rest will be for tomorrow, have to leave > > now): what exactly should be understood here with "dynamic"? > > > > AFAIU the wd:union is a sort of switch which allows to programatically > > enable a set of widgets. > > The wd:union "switch" can default to having no child widgets and later > switch to various sets of child widgets. Constrained only by the list of > cases in the union, you can dynamically decide which widgets to create > and when to create them. If you keep choosing to create sets of widgets > which include union widgets, then you are giving yourself the option grow > the widget tree as large as you like.
Aha, now I get it. It's much better than I thought ;-) And you're probably going to use this in combination with a repeater to get a repeating structure which can contain different sets of widgets on each row? > > > > However, I thought in earlier mails you were also implying to > > dynamically add new widgets (possibly with dynamically created widget > > definitions) to form instances. Or does the wd:union solve all your > > use-cases? > > I prefer to direct processes with data instead of code because data is > is easier to manipulate. yep, and that's a good decission. After all, the woody form definition is a sort of schema language, and by doing things this way everything remains described in the schema. (this also gives woody form definitions similar power to xml schemas with their sequence/choice combo) > The dynamically created widget definitions > were intended as a shortcut before I came up with this design. BTW, the > idea of reusing groups of widget and template definitions was inspired > by Marc's comments on the xReporter list [1]. I hope I did not mangle > his idea too much. That doesn't matter; I find it great how people sometimes come up with clever ideas by misunderstanding someone else suggestions. (though I don't know if that was the case here) To touch some of the other topics in your previous mail: * If I understand it right the wd:widgets/wd:include functionality is quite orthogonal to the wd:union proposal? I.e. the one does not really have to do with the other? (just to know that I understood it right) * On the aggregation: it would be nice if we could keep the current functionality of storing filename/linumber information on each node in the configuration DOM-tree, so that error messages can point to the exact source locations. This would require doing the aggregation on the DOM-tree rather than in a Cocoon pipeline. I'm willing to help out on this if needed. * on the xpath-addressing: could you give a concrete example of when it's needed? BTW, this is all very good stuff you're coming up with here! -- Bruno Dumon http://outerthought.org/ Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
