On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 02:32:21AM +0100, Joerg Heinicke wrote:
<wb:repeater id="myRepeaterId" parent-path="." row-path="TheRowPath">
<wb:unique-row>
<wb:value id="myId1" path="myId1"/>
<wb:value 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>
I also tend to prefer this approach - same reasoning with ambiguity of unique attribute.
<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>
What do the other people think?
I do not like this option, because it implies that the two wb:value's
are individually unique. The first example above (with wb:unique-row)
gives the right implication, that the values when combined identify a
unique row. I have mixed feelings about using wb:unique-row, wb:key,
or wb:unique-key, but I might be leaning toward wb:key.
I'm ok with <wb:key>... Oh, and I can suggest <wb:identity> - this will not have RDBMS background :-)
Vadim
