Joerg Heinicke dijo:
>> <wb:repeater id="myRepeaterId" parent-path="." row-path="TheRowPath">
>> <wb:unique-row>
>> <wb:unique-field id="myId1" path="myId1"/>
>> <wb:unique-field id="myId2" path="myId2"/>
>> </wb:unique-row>
>> <wb:on-bind>
>> <wb:value id="myId1" path="myId1"/>
>> <wb:value id="myId2" path="myId2"/>
>> <wb:value id="field1" path="field1"/>
>> <wb:value id="field2" path="field2"/>
>> </wb:on-bind>
>> </wb:repeater>
>
> It was a good idea to replace the both attributes with a more
> sophisticated XML structure, but it is a bad realization in my opinion.
I posted a proposal for changes before I started to code it. Nobody answer
(a silent aproval?), then I started the coding. Only Tim answered and give
me his OK.
The good news is it is not too hard to change the code and/or tag names. I
agree with you: we can do it far better. But how to start if nobody cares
about this change? On the other way I don't wanted to have this as another
"aproved change" without implementation. Seems like coding is a good tool
to put little pressure on other committers to review a proposal. Your
comments are very welcomed. ;-D
> <rant>
> The above is redundant, irritating (unique-field is not really correctly
> named, is it?)
Not sure, we can change it, I don't got long time thinking in the "right"
name. I am willing to change it for a more descriptive name. Can you give
us a suggestion?
> and (because of the more java code we need) bloated.
^^^^^^^
(Don't understand the word).
> On
> the one hand the redundancy above is obvious,
The redundancy was always there (using the old attributes you will see
it), maybe now it is more clear (evident) than before....
> on the other hand
> sentences like "This unique-field element ... The id and path attributes
> have the same meaning as in <wb:value>. ... The wd:convertor ... For
> more info see the description of this element in <wb:value>." will get
> me suspicious. Why the �$%& we need an additional XML element if we have
> already one that seems to be perfect for it: wb:value as the frequent
> references above show?
I thought about this too. The <wb:unique-field> description don't need all
the attributes of a <wb:value> element. After thinking on it, I thought it
would be better (even from a descriptive POV) to have another tag
describing clearly what the <wb:unique-field> is intendend for. It is a
striped down version of <wb:value> and conceptually they are diferent.
On the other side I don't mean to change the binding to much to allow a
back compatibility with the old approach.
> Why do we have to specify @id and @path twice for
> those identifying elements? And so on.
Not necesary at all. Note, sometime you don't define (or want to define) a
<wb:value> inside the <wb:on-binding> the key values. So it is valid too:
<wb:repeater id="myRepeaterId" parent-path="." row-path="TheRowPath">
<wb:unique-row>
<wb:unique-field id="myId1" path="myId1"/>
<wb:unique-field id="myId2" path="myId2"/>
</wb:unique-row>
<wb:on-bind>
<wb:value id="field1" path="field1"/>
<wb:value id="field2" path="field2"/>
</wb:on-bind>
</wb:repeater>
> Such changes should be well
> thought out, otherwise we have to change to much later on when
> sophisticating our XML elements.
They are, it cannot interefere with a more complex XML elements. Less is
sometimes better than nothing. It is just a first step. If this first step
was not taken we will not being discussing this issue at all. ;-)
> And the latter we do this the more we
> will break. Unfortunately not many Woody developers are really active on
> the list at the moment.
Because of short of time I don't posted this change to the user list. It
is my fault. Now, I am not sure if I can post on the user list about the
change since this mail looks like a total non-approval of the proposal.
Then why to ring a bell to the users? We can easily undo all the changes
and nothing will happens, then from a POV of users: it never happen at
all. :-)
> </rant>
>
> Another thing that I don't like is the new restriction:
> "Note: This binding is only active in the 'load' operation, so
> specifying the direction="save" is meaningless."
This is another thing that was there all the time, even before the
changes. I just replicated the same approach at it was before. The change
is just related to have multivalue "unique fields" instead of just one
(old style). Nothing more nor nothing less.
> Sorry, Antonio, but you seem to be often the targets of my rants ...
No problem at all. This help us to improve Cocoon. I am glad this happen,
keep on it. ;-)
The worse to me, will be when nobody will care on the work I do.
>> NOTE: The "old style" is also supported. You don't need to rewrite your
>> code. But I think we can also deprecate the old way (using attributes).
>
> I would not let live these deprecated attributes that long. Just like we
> did it for @readonly => @direction I would remove it as fast as possible
> and therefore do a big ANNOUNCEMENT on the users list.
OK. But I need an approval before make an ANNOUNCEMENT to the user list.
Let discuss it. I am sure we can improve the current solution.
> BTW, the wd:convertor element can also be deprecated and removed as it
> is used in combination with the unique-row-id.
Yep. I forgot to write about this. I already review the changes you do on
wiki. Thanks for you time to do this.
Some comments about other ways we droped while designing:
1-An initial name we tought was:
<wb:unique-field> --> <wb:key>
But this was for us much DB oriented and we are talking about forms here.
Carlos also pointed aout that a "primary key" in fact is just one. That
the "primary key" can be composed from more than one field, is another
story. Then we droped the <wb:key> name in favor of the current ONE that
looks more descriptive.
2-Another initial proposal was:
<wb:repeater id="myRepeaterId" parent-path="." row-path="TheRowPath">
<wb:on-bind>
<wb:value id="myId1" path="myId1" unique="true"/>
<wb:value id="myId2" path="myId2" unique="true"/>
<wb:value id="field1" path="field1"/>
<wb:value id="field2" path="field2"/>
</wb:on-bind>
</wb:repeater>
NOTE: see the new @unique on <wb:value>.
PRO:
It is shorter to write.
CON: More dificult to parse, some problems can rise. Need to be used with
@direction to state when we need it just as a readonly attribute. This can
overcomplicate things.
If you review the old and the new RepeaterJXPathBinging code, you will
note there is an issue:
"What happen when we change a <wb:unique-row-id> or a <wb:unique-field>?"
In fact given the current (and old) implementation, a change of the value
in this is done in this way:
"Remove the old one, then create a new one".
Why care about this? Because many DB implementation allow us to update the
Primary Key - PK (read <wb:unique-row-id> or <wb:unique-field>) without
removing the register at all, also we can define FOREIGN KEYS as "auto
updatables" (in case the PK on the other table change).
While review the code, I wondered (when discovered it) how good OJB can
manage it. But seems like other guys on the user list (not using OJB) are
having problems with this issue. Desafortunatelly, I cannot tell how to
fix this since I am not sure if this is work for CForms at all.
Last week, I spent the time learning this code. Don't wonder why I can
talk too much about it ;-)
Best Regards,
Antonio Gallardo.
