Reinhard Poetz wrote:
Daniel Fagerstrom wrote:
<snip/>
I still think that "macros" can be usable for reusable "model
definitions" but IMO the problem that you describe is a symptom of
model/view mixup in widget definitions, and we should start to do
something about that.
hmmm, what about this: In a former project (not done with cForms) we
had many places with order numbers, customer numbers, email adresses,
credit-card-numbers and many other repeating domain specific field types.
In cForms you always have to write
<fd:field id="order-number">
<fd:label>order number</fd:label>
<fd:datatype base="string"/>
<fd:validation>
...
</fd:validation>
</fd:field>
or the creditcard field definition would be a more verbose example
(think of the agrregation/splitting part, validation, ...). The
problem is not verbosity (sooner or later we will use GUIs to work on
cForms definitions) but consistency. If for some reason any free
mailer e-mail adresses shold be valid (hotmail, yahoo, gmx, ...) I
only want to change it at a *single* place.
Macros as reusable data types is OK in my (model view SoC
fundamentalistic ;) ) opinion. Just wanted to point out that your first
usesace could be attaced from a different POV.
/Daniel
