On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 09:15:36PM +0200, Bruno Dumon wrote: > On Wed, 2004-04-28 at 20:55, Vadim Gritsenko wrote: > > It worked just fine for all those pages were you just need to output > > value of the widget and don't need to read it. > > In other words, for those things for which you don't need a widget at > all ;-) Though I understand you do it this way if the data is logically > part of the form.
Hey! I keep seeing people seeming to think of cforms as just a thin layer to manage request parameters :( We are actually building a full data model, with internal and external validation, event triggers, recursive data structures, access permissions (normal r/w widgets vs. "output" widgets vs. other proposed modes like no-echo passwords), and so forth. Just because some data is read-only does not mean it should not be modeled via a widget, and thus lose all of the other features we gain by using our widget-based data model. I see people embedding cforms in portals/coplets, but when our various cforms repositories and dynamic widget handling is mature I think this will be turned inside out. Think about a new coplet-widget... ;^) (This is not directed at you Bruno...I just think we need to realize the full extent of what we are creating.) --Tim Larson
