On 9/12/06, Jacob Kaplan-Moss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Out of curiosity, did you consider having a single ``Form`` object
> that may be bound or unbound? It seems like most of ``BoundForm``
> simply delegates down to the enclosed ``Form``, so perhaps ``Form.bind
> ()`` should store the data internally and just behave differently
> once bound?
If we have a single Form object that may be bound or unbound, what is
the "more correct" behavior of bind()? Namely, should any data passed
to those functions *overwrite* any existing bound data, or should it
raise an exception?
Solution One:
class Form(object):
def __init__(self):
self._data = None
def bind(self, kwargs):
self._data = kwargs # Overwrite regardless of whether already bound.
Solution Two:
class Form(object):
def __init__(self):
self._data = None
def bind(self, kwargs):
if self._data is not None:
raise Exception('This form is already bound.')
self._data = kwargs
Solution Three:
class Form(object):
def __init__(self):
self._data = {}
def bind(self, kwargs):
self._data.update(kwargs)
I can see arguments for any of these, although I think my preference
is for Solution Two. (Actually I must admit my *true* preference is
for separate Form and BoundForm classes, so we avoid this issue
entirely.)
Similarly, how would is_valid() and errors() work? If is_valid() or
errors() get passed kwargs, does the form instance automatically
become a BoundForm? What if it's already been bound? Do the kwargs
replace any existing bound data?
Adrian
--
Adrian Holovaty
holovaty.com | djangoproject.com
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
