On Wed, 2003-11-05 at 20:30, Bruno Dumon wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-11-05 at 19:57, Bruno Dumon wrote:
> > On Wed, 2003-11-05 at 18:51, Antonio Gallardo wrote:
> > > Hi:
> > >
> > > I am trying to do a "form.save(bean)" from an empty displayed form.I have
> > > 2 days with this sample and still not working. :-(
> > >
> > >
> > > My problem is that inside the "repeater" there is only 1 value (res_id) of
> > > datatype integer.
> > >
> > > Binding just save the first 2 values and an empty repeater.
> >
> > Is the res_id field a field that the user can edit? The current
> > repeater-binding assumes that new rows are those with an empty id field
> > (res_id your case). Thus if these are editable by the user and the user
> > puts a value in them, the repeater binding will not detect that these
> > are new rows.
> >
> > However, it is of course possible to implement alternative
> > repeater-binding strategies. One that's also available is
> > wb:simple-repeater (see javadoc of the class
> > SimpleRepeaterJXPathBindingBuilder). This binding works by first
> > removing all items, and the adding all the items in the repeater.
>
> After having a look at the source code, I'm afraid that binding
> currently only works for XML documents.
Sylvain, would you mind if I changed the simple-repeater binding so that
its configuration lines up more with that of the other repeater binding?
I'm thinking of something like this:
<wb:simple-repeater>
<wb:on-bind>
...
</wb:on-bind>
<wb:on-insert-row>
...
</wb:on-insert-row>
</wb:simple-repeater>
The wb:on-insert-row element would be optional, if not specified the
binding would work as it is now (ie rely on JXPath to create the path).
--
Bruno Dumon http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
