I've just had a thought as to how to make it not a breaking change.
Leave your change "calcValue(s.child) I just call calcValue(s)"
change:
case class FuncBindParam(name: String, value: NodeSeq => NodeSeq)
extends Tuple2(name, value) with BindParam {
def calcValue(in: NodeSeq): NodeSeq = value(in)
}
to:
case class FuncBindParam(name: String, value: NodeSeq => NodeSeq)
extends Tuple2(name, value) with BindParam {
def calcValue(in: NodeSeq): NodeSeq = value(in.child)
}
That should prevent old code breaking... which would be a good
thing(tm) given the amount of code that uses bind(...)
then create something like:
case class FuncMetaDataBindParam(name: String, value: (MetaData,
NodeSeq) => NodeSeq) extends Tuple2(name, value) with BindParam {
def calcValue(in: NodeSeq): NodeSeq = value(in.attributes,
in.child)
}
along with adding to class SuperArrowAssoc...
def ->(in: (MetaData, NodeSeq) => NodeSeq) =
FuncMetaDataBindParam(name, in)
That would be fairly clean...
-----
Maybe for those that actually want the full node add:
case class FuncBoxBindParam(name: String, value: Box(NodeSeq) =>
NodeSeq) extends Tuple2(name, value) with BindParam {
def calcValue(in: NodeSeq): NodeSeq = value(Full(in))
}
and you could go nuts and:
case class FuncPrefixAndLabelBindParam(name: String, value:
(String, String, NodeSeq) => NodeSeq) extends Tuple2(name, value) with
BindParam {
def calcValue(in: NodeSeq): NodeSeq = value(in.prefix, in.label,
in.child)
}
etc...
On 06/01/2009, at 10:51 PM, Marc Boschma wrote:
>
> (you can tel I'm sleeping well :/ - too hot)
>
> The toList function is one of David's (todo example app). I do love
> the ability to curry :)
>
> Marc
> On 06/01/2009, at 9:51 PM, Marius wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jan 6, 12:47 pm, Marc Boschma <marc+lift...@boschma.cx> wrote:
>>> A quick just before going to bed reaction is that your change would
>>> solve the issue.
>>
>> Yeah it would ... (I mean it worked fine in my tests)
>>
>>>
>>> It is interesting you focused on the "exclude" and not the
>>> "list" (which is what I have been playing with). I actually missed
>>> it
>>> was a similar case...
>>
>> I just picked it randomly :) ... I've seen that you're using a
>> partially applied function doList ... (which I assume it is a curried
>> function):)
>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Marc
>>>
>>> On 06/01/2009, at 9:24 PM, Marius wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I just did a minor modification to the lift code so the actual
>>>> node it
>>>> is passed to the BindParam and not its child. Now having:
>>>
>>>> bind("todo", html,
>>>> "exclude" -> {node:NodeSeq =>ajaxCheckbox
>>>> (QueryNotDone, v => {QueryNotDone(v); reDraw})}
>>>> ... )
>>>
>>>> and the markup <todo:exclude param="Dumb"/>
>>>
>>>> The node parameter to the anonymous function will be the
>>>> <todo:exclude> node and not its children. So now you can access the
>>>> "param" attribute from node. The change was in in_bind function so
>>>> instead of calling calcValue(s.child) I just call calcValue(s)
>>>
>>>> Looking at the existent BindParams this change does not seem to
>>>> cause
>>>> side effects since the calcValue 'in' parameter is used only for
>>>> FuncXXXBindParam-s. The impact is that the user's function would
>>>> now
>>>> get the actual node (from which now he can extract attributes) and
>>>> not
>>>> the child nodes. But child nodes from the actual node are trivial
>>>> to
>>>> obtain.
>>>
>>>> I did not commit this change as I'd like to see other opinions to
>>>> see
>>>> if there is something that I missed somehow. If we get general
>>>> consensus of this change I can commit it right away and announce
>>>> it as
>>>> a "breaking change".
>>>
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>>> Br's,
>>>> Marius
>>>
>>>> On Jan 6, 12:02 pm, Marius <marius.dan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> A nice alternative would have been :
>>>
>>>>> bind("todo", html,
>>>>> "exclude" -> {node:NodeSeq =>ajaxCheckbox
>>>>> (QueryNotDone, v => {QueryNotDone(v); reDraw})}
>>>>> ... )
>>>
>>>>> But here the node impersonates the childNodes not the original
>>>>> node.
>>>>> So you still can not access the param attribute below
>>>
>>>>> <todo:exclude param="Dumb"/>
>>>
>>>>> but you can do it like:
>>>
>>>>> <todo:exclude ><meta param="dumb"/></todo:exclude>
>>>
>>>>> and you have full access to the meta node as it is a child of
>>>>> todo:exclude. Hence you can pass state.
>>>
>>>>> I know, it is not ideal but should be workable until snippet
>>>>> child-
>>>>> node attributes are exposed in one way or another.
>>>
>>>>> Br's,
>>>>> Marius
>>>
>>>>> Marc Boschma wrote:
>>>>>> I have been playing with the ToDo example application and having
>>>>>> fun
>>>>>> in manipulating XML.
>>>
>>>>>> With the <todo:list/> node I thought it would be good if the
>>>>>> XHTML
>>>>>> designer could pass in some guidance to the doList(...) method
>>>>>> used in
>>>>>> bind(..). ie. <todo:list singular="true">...</todo:list>
>>>
>>>>>> Looking over the bind code I noticed that the attributes are not
>>>>>> accessible without ending up changing the calcValue method's
>>>>>> signature. I did initially try to knock up a
>>>
>>>>>> case class FuncWithAttrBindParam(name: String, value: (NodeSeq,
>>>>>> MetaData) => NodeSeq) extends Tuple2(name, value) with BindParam
>>>
>>>>>> and a corresponding
>>>
>>>>>> case Some(ns : FuncWithAttrBindParam) =>
>>>
>>>>>> in in_bind(...), but it all looks like a huge kludge.
>>>
>>>>>> It strikes me as a little deficient to be able to utilise
>>>>>> attributes
>>>>>> within the context of a snippet and yet not within a bind. I know
>>>>>> bind
>>>>>> is quite embedded in lift now, but I think that this difference
>>>>>> might
>>>>>> prove a little frustrating. I know one solution is to just
>>>>>> create a
>>>>>> bind("todo", html,
>>>>>> "exclude" ->
>>>>>> ajaxCheckbox(QueryNotDone, v => {QueryNotDone(v); reDraw}),
>>>>>> "list" -> doList(reDraw, false)
>>>>>> _,
>>>>>> "list_singular" -> doList(reDraw, true)
>>>>>> _)
>>>
>>>>>> But I think from the XHtml designer's perspective that is counter
>>>>>> intuitive...
>>>
>>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>>>>> ------
>>>
>>>>>> It should be noted that this is different to the case class
>>>>>> FuncAttrBindParam(name: String, value: NodeSeq => NodeSeq,
>>>>>> newAttr:
>>>>>> String) extends BindParam with BindWithAttr. Which interesting
>>>>>> enough
>>>>>> has no corresponding SuperArrowAssoc -> method match. Maybe
>>>
>>>>>> def ->(t: Tuple2[String, NodeSeq]) = AttrBindParam(name, t._2,
>>>>>> t._1)
>>>>>> def ->(t: Tuple2[String, NodeSeq => NodeSeq]) =
>>>>>> FuncAttrBindParam(name, t._2, t._1)
>>>
>>>>>> And maybe even...
>>>
>>>>>> def ->[T](t: Tuple2[String, T]) = FuncAttrBindParam(name, (name
>>>>>> ->
>>>>>> t._2).calcValue _, t._1)
>>>
>>>>>> or
>>>
>>>>>> def ->[T](t: Tuple2[String, T]) = FuncAttrBindParam(name, (t._1
>>>>>> ->
>>>>>> t._2).calcValue _, t._1)
>>>
>>>>>> I'm not sure which is better on the last two... Just a thought.
>>>
>>>>>> Marc
>>>
>
>
> >
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Lift" group.
To post to this group, send email to liftweb@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
liftweb+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
