On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 07:05:49PM +0100, Sylvain Wallez wrote: > Tim Larson wrote: > >On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 06:29:46PM +0100, Sylvain Wallez wrote: > >>Tim Larson wrote: > >>>On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 11:29:28AM +0100, Sylvain Wallez wrote: > >>I had a bug while writing widget states because Repeater.RepeaterRow was > >>redefining getParent() while I was using this.parent. So I made it final > >>in order to be able to use this.parent throughout AbstractWidget. > > > >Ok, but I predict Marc will be unhappy ;) > > Why? Does he have special widgets that redefine getParent(). If that's > the case, we can remove the "final" and replace "this.parent" by > "getParent()".
Just the general rule of preventing the possibility of making changes to things that should not be changed, such as a RepeaterRow's parent, but maybe someone will find a usecase to justify it :) > Ok. Something that's seem more and more necessary to me is an "output" > state that would sit between "disabled" and "invisible", in order to > render widgets as text and not as disabled inputs without having to use > styling type="output". Yes, lets start by adding that, and see where that gets us. > You already told us about this idea, and it seems to me much more > general than CForms. However, I also understand that you may want to use > CForms as a playground for this experiment. But doing it in the main dev > line when we are trying to achieve stable state for CForms is IMO dangerous. > > So whiteboard/scratchpad seems a good idea. Remember: flowscript started > there ;-) I have no problem with this, as long as it is ok with others for me to clone cforms in the whiteboard for this purpose. --Tim Larson
