Re: v2 (was Re: [CForms binding] access to model data from repeater row widget)
Mark Lundquist wrote: Hey, this morning I remembered what started me down the v2 path, as I was replying to a guy on the users' list. It was that in v2, I can set someWidget.onValidate to a function that is nested inside the form controller flowscript function, where it can access that function's local variables. (Here's that mail: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon- usersm=111954841402175w=2... I mention a way that might work in v1 that I hadn't thought of until today as I was composing that!) Ah yes. I'll add this to V1 as well. Sylvain -- Sylvain WallezAnyware Technologies http://apache.org/~sylvainhttp://anyware-tech.com Apache Software Foundation Member Research Technology Director
Re: v2 (was Re: [CForms binding] access to model data from repeater row widget)
On Jun 23, 2005, at 2:25 AM, Sylvain Wallez wrote:
One thing I don't care so much for in v2 is the idiom of attaching
view data as properties of the widget tree root. The minimalist
approach (losing 'bizData') was clever, but in actual practice I find
that I really like having one locus of transfer of data between the
flowscript and the presentation, so I usually end up with something
like this anyway:
w.viewData =
{
schtuff: foobar,
etc:otherStuff
};
form.showForm ('whatev');
Uh? Didn't knew about that, and looks hacky IMO.
Ex-hacktly! :-)
BTW, why do you prefer v2 rather than v1?
Hey, this morning I remembered what started me down the v2 path, as I
was replying to a guy on the users' list. It was that in v2, I can set
someWidget.onValidate to a function that is nested inside the form
controller flowscript function, where it can access that function's
local variables. (Here's that mail:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-
usersm=111954841402175w=2... I mention a way that might work in v1
that I hadn't thought of until today as I was composing that!)
cheers,
—ml—
Re: v2 (was Re: [CForms binding] access to model data from repeater row widget)
On Jun 21, 2005, at 8:41 AM, Mark Lundquist wrote:
On Jun 20, 2005, at 11:42 PM, Sylvain Wallez wrote:
BTW, why do you prefer v2 rather than v1?
..schnip!..
One thing I don't care so much for in v2 is the idiom of attaching view
data as properties of the widget tree root. The minimalist approach
(losing 'bizData') was clever, but in actual practice I find that I
really like having one locus of transfer of data between the flowscript
and the presentation, so I usually end up with something like this
anyway:
w.viewData =
{
schtuff: foobar,
etc:otherStuff
};
form.showForm ('whatev');
...and so I guess I'd rather have it as an explicit parameter (and also
not needing to have 'viewData.' at the head of the expression path
within the JX template).
While on the subject... since I am Mr. Anal Nomenclature Pants, I
would vote for changing 'bizData' to 'viewData' (as in v3)... a much
better name IMHO :-)
cheers,
—ml—
