Re: [CForms binding] - New repeater (was:Re: TempRepeater vs. SimpleRepeater)
On Sun, Feb 29, 2004 at 09:35:27PM -0600, Antonio Gallardo wrote: Hi Tim: Hi Antonio, nice to hear from you again. Thanks for the description. No problem, sorry it was slow coming. My family has been sick and that took precedence. Now I see to TempRepeater as a SimpleRpeater++. Is this correct? Yes, exactly. snip/ 1- The Best: Allow repeater to define unique-row with more than 1 field. snip/ Back to (1), in order to allow multiple unique-ids, we need to change from attributes to elements: @unique-row-id and @unique-path So in this way we can write: wb:repeater id=myRepeaterId parent-path=. row-path=TheRowPath wb:unique-row wb:unique-field id=myId1 path=myId1/ wb:unique-field id=myId2 path=myId2/ /wb:unique-row wb:on-bind wb:value id=myId1 path=myId1/ wb:value id=myId2 path=myId2/ wb:value id=field1 path=field1/ wb:value id=field2 path=field2/ /wb:on-bind /wb:repeater WDYT? Looks good. This is probably a common problem, and modifying the regular wb:repeater to accept multiple unique row elements seems like the right way to go. I need to have something like this for tomorrow. If this is OK. I will start to work right now on this. --Tim Larson
Re: [CForms binding] - New repeater (was:Re: TempRepeater vs. SimpleRepeater)
Hi Tim: I am glad to hear from you again. :-D Tim Larson dijo: On Sun, Feb 29, 2004 at 09:35:27PM -0600, Antonio Gallardo wrote: Hi Tim: Hi Antonio, nice to hear from you again. Thanks for the description. No problem, sorry it was slow coming. My family has been sick and that took precedence. I hope your family will recover soon. Now I see to TempRepeater as a SimpleRpeater++. Is this correct? Yes, exactly. snip/ 1- The Best: Allow repeater to define unique-row with more than 1 field. snip/ Back to (1), in order to allow multiple unique-ids, we need to change from attributes to elements: @unique-row-id and @unique-path So in this way we can write: wb:repeater id=myRepeaterId parent-path=. row-path=TheRowPath wb:unique-row wb:unique-field id=myId1 path=myId1/ wb:unique-field id=myId2 path=myId2/ /wb:unique-row wb:on-bind wb:value id=myId1 path=myId1/ wb:value id=myId2 path=myId2/ wb:value id=field1 path=field1/ wb:value id=field2 path=field2/ /wb:on-bind /wb:repeater WDYT? Looks good. This is probably a common problem, and modifying the regular wb:repeater to accept multiple unique row elements seems like the right way to go. Thanks for your comment. It was helpfull. Now, I will start this new repeater as another repeater (Repeater2) in the repeater family and if everybody agree we will be able to switch soon to this new repeater. OK? Best Regards, Antonio Gallardo.
Re: [CForms binding] - New repeater (was:Re: TempRepeater vs. SimpleRepeater)
On Sun, Feb 29, 2004 at 10:22:17PM -0600, Antonio Gallardo wrote: wb:repeater id=myRepeaterId parent-path=. row-path=TheRowPath wb:unique-row wb:unique-field id=myId1 path=myId1/ wb:unique-field id=myId2 path=myId2/ /wb:unique-row wb:on-bind wb:value id=myId1 path=myId1/ wb:value id=myId2 path=myId2/ wb:value id=field1 path=field1/ wb:value id=field2 path=field2/ /wb:on-bind /wb:repeater WDYT? Looks good. This is probably a common problem, and modifying the regular wb:repeater to accept multiple unique row elements seems like the right way to go. Thanks for your comment. It was helpfull. Now, I will start this new repeater as another repeater (Repeater2) in the repeater family and if everybody agree we will be able to switch soon to this new repeater. OK? Consider adding this to the regular wb:repeater; if the unique* attributes are not present then have the repeater builder look to see if the wb:unique-*/ elements are present. I do not think this would upset anyone, and if we later decide we want to get rid of the unique* attributes we can do so with minimal changes. I hope we can eventually merge all the repeater bindings to all use the same wb:repeater/ element and just have the different types of repeater binding definition objects be created based on the attributes and elements present. Last I remember this topic was still under discussion, however. --Tim Larson
