From: Joerg Heinicke > Sylvain Wallez wrote: > > Torsten Curdt wrote: > > > >> <snip/> > >> > >>> I proposed to introduce a datatype dictionary to factorize common > >>> type definition (along with their validators and selection-list). > >>> This would turn your example into something like: > >>> > >>> <wd:datatype id="email" base="string"> > >>> <wd:validation> > >>> <wd:email/> > >>> </wd:validation> > >>> </wd:datatype> > >>> > >>> And then: > >>> <wd:widget id="supplierEmail" required="true"> > >>> <wd:datatype base="email"/> > >>> </wd:widget> > >> > >> > >> > >> hm.. that's what I had in mind when I read Reinhard's proposal > > I see a difference between a widget repository and a datatype > repository. > When presenting Woody in our company I was asked for a widget > repository > too. But more important is the datatype repository, the > widget repository > does not avoid so much typing.
If you have a widget repository and you can extend existing widgets it would help you. But maybe datatypes are the cleaner approach. > > > >>> What I mentioned was the need for a generic flowscript wizard > >>> library, that could allow to define "backtrack points" in > the list > >>> of ancestors of the current continuation. > >> > >> > >> > >> hm... why is backtracking needed? or what do you mean by it? > > > > > > > > Well, "backtracking" means "go back to a previous state and restart > > from > > there". And this is what continuations allow easily. > > But when I use "go back" in a wizard I don't want to loose > the entries > already done in the second page. So simply calling the other > continuation is > not good in my opinion. If you jump back you don't lose data with flowscript because the only one stack is saved and not the stacks which belong to a certain continuation. Reinhard
