On Thu, 2003-11-06 at 11:33, Antonio Gallardo wrote: > Bruno Dumon dijo: > > 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). > > I thought adding a new repeater will add more complexity to Cocoon forms. > Better will be to add an attribute in <wb:repeater> that will allow the > behavior or not. I propose something like: > > unique-change="true" [default false] > > If set to true, then the unique field can be changed. > > Is this correct?
I think you're mixing stuff. The simple-repeater uses another strategy to perform the binding, and doesn't need a unique identification (since it simply deletes and re-adds everything). -- Bruno Dumon http://outerthought.org/ Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
