On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Marius <marius.dan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Ok ... i just committed some changes:
>
> 1. Renamed curAttr to attr
> 2. The BindHelpers vals are now private but we expose two functions
> currentNode and bindNodes
Cool beans!
>
>
> Br's,
> Marius
>
> On Jan 6, 8:37 pm, "David Pollak" <feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Marius <marius.dan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Jan 6, 7:15 pm, "David Pollak" <feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > I also added
> > > > BindHelpers.attr("tag"): Option[NodeSeq]
> > > > so you can do something like:
> >
> > > > <span class={BindHelpers.attr("class")>...</span>
> >
> > > > and:
> > > > BindHelpers.attr("prefix", "tag")
> >
> > > I think it is committed to curAttr which personally I'm not a fan ...
> > > Doyou mind if I change it to attr or nodeAttr ?
> >
> > Go for it.
> >
> >
> >
> > > > Thanks,
> >
> > > > David
> >
> > > > On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 9:13 AM, Marius <marius.dan...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > > > Very cool Dave !
> >
> > > > > thx,
> > > > > Marius
> >
> > > > > On Jan 6, 4:36 pm, "David Pollak" <feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > Folks,
> >
> > > > > > I'm about to commit up a non-breaking solution.
> >
> > > > > > In bind, you can call:
> > > > > > BindHelpers.bindNodes.value: List[NodeSeq]
> > > > > > BindHelpers.currentNode.value: Elem
> >
> > > > > > bindNodes is a list of the nodes that were passed into bind with
> the
> > > more
> > > > > > current node at the head of the list. If you're doing
> hierarchical
> > > > > binding,
> > > > > > you can see all the nodes that were passed into bind this was.
> >
> > > > > > currentNode is available to the BindParam and it contains the
> parent
> > > Elem
> > > > > to
> > > > > > the NodeSeq that was passed into your BindParam. You can inspect
> > > > > attributes
> > > > > > to your heart's content.
> >
> > > > > > Give it an hour or two for these changes to make their way
> through
> > > > > Hudson.
> >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> >
> > > > > > David
> >
> > > > > > On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 4:50 AM, Marc Boschma
> > > > > > <marc+lift...@boschma.cx <marc%2blift...@boschma.cx> <
> marc%2blift...@boschma.cx <marc%252blift...@boschma.cx>> <
> > > marc%2blift...@boschma.cx <marc%252blift...@boschma.cx> <
> marc%252blift...@boschma.cx <marc%25252blift...@boschma.cx>>><
> > > > > marc%2blift...@boschma.cx <marc%252blift...@boschma.cx> <
> marc%252blift...@boschma.cx <marc%25252blift...@boschma.cx>> <
> > > marc%252blift...@boschma.cx <marc%25252blift...@boschma.cx> <
> marc%25252blift...@boschma.cx <marc%2525252blift...@boschma.cx>>>>
> >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > 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<marc%2blift...@boschma.cx>
> <marc%2blift...@boschma.cx <marc%252blift...@boschma.cx>>
> > > <marc%2blift...@boschma.cx <marc%252blift...@boschma.cx> <
> marc%252blift...@boschma.cx <marc%25252blift...@boschma.cx>>>
> > > > > <marc%2blift...@boschma.cx <marc%252blift...@boschma.cx> <
> marc%252blift...@boschma.cx <marc%25252blift...@boschma.cx>> <
> > > marc%252blift...@boschma.cx <marc%25252blift...@boschma.cx> <
> marc%25252blift...@boschma.cx <marc%2525252blift...@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)
> > > > > > > >>>>>> _,
> >
> > ...
> >
> > read more ยป
> >
>
--
Lift, the simply functional web framework http://liftweb.net
Collaborative Task Management http://much4.us
Follow me: http://twitter.com/dpp
Git some: http://github.com/dpp
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
