So what might some of those ways be? Dave
On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 2:33 PM, aum strut <aum.str...@gmail.com> wrote: > agree!!! > > On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 10:20 PM, Dave Newton <davelnew...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > And *my* point is that perhaps there's another way you can solve your > > problem and eliminate the "tight" coupling between form and action. > > > > Dave > > > > On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 11:16 AM, aum strut <aum.str...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > My point was that the boolean approach mentioned in the document was in > > my > > > opinion is better and same was mentioned in the > > > document sinnce it was not coupling the form tightly with action. > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 9:44 PM, Dave Newton <davelnew...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 11:13 AM, aum strut <aum.str...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > agree!!!!! > > > > > but i still believe coupling the form value with action component > is > > > > never > > > > > a > > > > > good idea.. so still believe the first approach was was better. > > > > > > > > > > > > > So... is there another way to achieve what you want? > > > > > > > > Dave > > > > > > > > > >
