Hi,
I've been working on XMLForm stuff and overall it's nice. just.....
Actions....I don't really like them. They smell. Okay, actually I
think they might have their place if say
your form handling was really really really complex, but thats not the
90% case. (yes I realize they are
part of cocoon and not xmlform)
Is there some way of handling this in the sitemap? Say
<actionmap name="SampleAction">
<form name="myform">
<command name="next">
...do stuff (like redirecting to the mapping for a page of the
form or something)
</command>
<command name="cancel">
....
</command>
</form>
</actionmap>
Furthermore, most beans that I'll be creating are *STUPID*.. Meaning,
they're something that a C struct would
perfectly satisfy. In such an event is there a way to just define the
set of fields:
<formbean name="Customer">
<field name="firstname" type="string"/>
<field name="lastname" type="string"/>
<field name="irateflag" type="boolean"/>
</formbean>
While I'm not sure this should be in say the sitemap, it seems like I
should be able to define my datatypes in XML
somewhere.
Advantages:
1. Shortens the change/compile/test cycle and increases developer
productivity
2. Saves typing getters and setters
3. Don't Repeat Yourself, if I'm going to create 100 practically
identical classes, then one must ask, why am I
creating them at all.
4. Smells like cocoon. (where Actions and the beans smell like struts)
Disadvantages
1. Might require serialization before passing to java code.
Mitigations
1. Pass a DOM tree or something.
While I'm just betting someone already thought of this, in the event
they didn't I am happy to contribute, though I lack
the in-depth knowledge of cocoon innards to provide it by my lonesome.
-Andy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
