Antonio Gallardo schrieb:
Sylvain Wallez escribió:
- since only CForms has Ajax integration, people are over-using it for
presentation purposes (e.g. paginated repeater)
I agree with you, mixing binding with form definition is not good. We
want to keep it separated. However, I think it is a first implementation
wich show us a way to implement a paginated repeater after all it is not
released yet. It is a work in progress. Is not fair to blame to a first
draft implementation.
I had my thoughts whether the mixing is appropriate or not from the
start, so thank you for your feedback.
As Simone mentioned in his reply, our main goal was to achieve the
lazy-loading of pages. I agree that using the standard binding to fetch
all rows and just display a subset (page) of them could be easily done
with some simple xsl and without changes in the repeater implementation
at all. But we are not focused just on presentation. Our implementation
is a try to load only the row-data we need to support persistency
frameworks and large collections in general. Currently lazy loading
could be achieved without changes in the controller except using the
advanced collection. Editing data is also possible yet, adding and
deleting of rows will follow.
So concerning this I think pageSave/pageLoad has to be done in the
binding because we have to control the doLoad()-method and prevent it
from fetching and creating all rows from the start. To ensure seperation
of concerns we can maybe try to move everything to the binding.
Currently the form-definition is used to enable pagination and and
setting pageSize and so on. This configuration tag could be easily moved
to the binding definition file without problems. The binding registers
its pageStorage object in the repeater object just for one purpose. In
the change-page-action I need to call pageSave and pageLoad. If I manage
to access these methods there directly without
repeater.getStorage().doPageLoad() in a decent way, everything would
work just using the binding and without touching the definition and the
repeater itself.
Please let me know what you think about it or if I'm getting something
completely wrong.
Matthias
