On Fri, 2004-04-30 at 16:10, Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
> Bruno Dumon wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 2004-04-30 at 14:30, Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Sylvain Wallez wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Bruno Dumon wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>...
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>>And now the practical side: example usage in flowscript:
> >>>>
> >>>>form.getWidget("test").addActionListener(newActionListener(function(event)
> >>>>{
> >>>> print("hi there");
> >>>>}));
> >>>>
> >>>>where the newActionListener function is as follows:
> >>>>
> >>>>function newActionListener(listenerFunction) {
> >>>> var listener = {actionPerformed: listenerFunction };
> >>>> var adapter = new
> >>>>JavaAdapter(Packages.org.apache.cocoon.forms.event.ActionListener,
> >>>>listener);
> >>>> return adapter;
> >>>>}
> >>>>
> >>>>Question: do we add these newActionListener and newValueChangedListener
> >>>>functions to the (javascript) form object, or as separate functions next
> >>>>to it?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>It could also be an additional method of ScriptableWidget, which would
> >>>take care of the adaptation.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Agreed. And syntax should become then simply:
> >>
> >>form.getWidget("test").addActionListener(function(event) {
> >> print("hi there");
> >>});
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Saw my message about the v3 api?
> >
> >
>
> Saw but have not read yet - just got cable internet setup yesterday ;-)
>
>
> >there I've implemented it as:
> >
> >form.model.test.onActivate = function() { print("hi there"); }
> >
> >which is still more readable and (I think) flexible enough.
> >
>
> Does it support more than one listener? Not that I need it right away,
> but addActionListener implies more than one listener, where "onActivate
> =" implies just one (setter semantic).
yep that's right, it only supports one. I think that for the flowscript
integration this is good enough, and it makes it somewhat simpler to
read and understand.
--
Bruno Dumon http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
