On Mar 11, 2009, at 4:53 AM, Bilgin Ibryam wrote:
On Mar 11, 2009, at 9:43 AM, David E Jones wrote:
So, until then...
To get there with the form widget I think we'll need to introduce a
new field type, like a form-backed link that we can use instead of
the hyperlink field type that we currently use to pass parameters
in the URL.
-David
Hi David,
I think this is good security rule and it would be good to have it
in the framework.
Do you have any idea how to cope with "nested forms problem"
This isn't too hard, just takes a little work. You can always put
forms with all hidden fields elsewhere in the page and then have a
link submit them.
Also, there are links in the screens, which are used to invoke
services. Should we replace these links with forms or add a new
attribute to link element and render the link as a form with hidden
fields containing all the request parameters ?
Yes, screens and other places will need this option too (a way to do
mini-forms as an alternative to links for calling services). I'll be
playing with these in the near future and figure out a good XML schema
for it, probably a "formlink" or something with nested elements for
the parameters to pass to it (which will all end up being hidden forms
on the parameters).
Along with this I'm still thinking about doing unique keys for each
form so that they are more protected, and to avoid duplicate
submissions and such - those would initially only work by default for
form widget forms that are handled by service type events.
-David
