Hi Joerg:
If the problem is just to change a name:
from <wb:unique-field> to <wb:value>
Then, no problem from my side. If you agree, I will change the code and this issue can be closed, right? :-D
No, please don't do another fast shot. I would like to have this discussed by a few more people.
And it was more than just the name: - the additional binding classes (bloated Java) - the @direction - wb:unique-row/wb:value vs. wb:on-bind/wb:value/@unique
So it's not just the name, but the binding to be used (ValueJXPathBinding vs. UniqueFieldJXPathBinding). And we need agreement on
<wb:repeater id="myRepeaterId" parent-path="." row-path="TheRowPath">
<wb:unique-row>
<wb:value id="myId1" path="myId1"/>
<wb:value id="myId2" path="myId2"/>
</wb:unique-row>
<wb:on-bind>
<wb:value id="field1" path="field1"/>
<wb:value id="field2" path="field2"/>
</wb:on-bind>
</wb:repeater>or
<wb:repeater id="myRepeaterId" parent-path="." row-path="TheRowPath">
<wb:on-bind>
<wb:value id="myId1" path="myId1" unique="true"/>
<wb:value id="myId2" path="myId2" unique="true"/>
<wb:value id="field1" path="field1"/>
<wb:value id="field2" path="field2"/>
</wb:on-bind>
</wb:repeater>What do the other people think?
Joerg
