Joerg Heinicke wrote:
On 11.03.2004 17:31, Marc Portier wrote:
All together we are at:
<fb:repeater id="myRepeaterId" parent-path="." row-path="TheRowPath"> <fb:identity> <fb:value id="myId1" path="myId1"/> <fb:value id="myId2" path="myId2"/> </fb:identity> <fb:on-bind> <fb:value id="field1" path="field1"/> <fb:value id="field2" path="field2"/> </fb:on-bind> </fb:repeater>
yep, sounds like the best we have ATM
So, I implemented this myself. To be honest, I'm proud of this work. Not
this is utter good news
only that I got it working, I also had the feeling I know what I'm doing
even better :-)
:) Ok, it took a while to understand all the things in the code, but now it works. I tested it with the form2 binding samples.
Some issues:
1. I removed the old attributes and convertor. I will also add this to the woody2cforms upgrade task. Obviously this must by solved by a stylesheet.
I missed the reason to do away with the convertor, or you moved it down to the identity-binding?
2. The repeater binding has to know stuff (fieldId, xpath, convertor, etc.) from its child bindings - and this dependency is bad. With the
IIRC we just duplicated that info during building in order to make sure there would not be added coupling between the repeater and it's possible children
both attributes all details where known to the repeater binding builder (therefore it implemented the functionality of a second builder) and so to the repeater binding. This is no longer true for the elements. I can get the child bindings from the composed binding, but I had to open (additional getters) the value binding to get the values no longer available to the repeater binding otherwise.
afraid I don't understand completely yet
This issue goes on: I expect value bindings as child bindings, nothing else (would result in ClassCastException at the moment). I could imagine the use of other bindings here too: the simplest is the context binding, which seems to be absolutely valid, but not working, because there is no chance to get the values from a value binding which is a child of a context binding which is a child of the identity binding. The extreme would be a repeater binding: imagine a list of persons that have a list of biometrical data that constitute the identity of those persons.
All together: there is now a dependency of the repeater binding on its child bindings. We can restrict the allowed child elements of fb:identity to fb:value that reduces the problem to current minimum, but maybe something else is needed.
oh, I'm starting to see the light again...
damn, I have to check in the maillinglist to see if this was just a personal mental note or a discussed proposal, but in any case:
IMHO this calls for an additional method on the binding interface, next to load() and save() we should be able to ask for isMatch() or even better isIdentical()
wdyt?
I read all the threads and use cases. And yes, a unification of the
pfew, you are a brave man :-)
I need some time to list all changes, proposals, enhancements that were partially discussed but haven't got into code yet
That would be interesting. I guess while reading I lost at least half of the stuff ...
Also the unification for binding to bean or XML is a one. This ends at the latest with the repeater at the moment as the @parent-path/@row-path is different for beans and XML.
hm, I've experienced this myself now and then, but I'm afraid this is out of our league, jxpath imposes an XML way of looking at your java-bean that is sometimes 'surprising':
Yes, I know and fear this.
what most naturally looks like the standard java version of an xml snippet seems (often due to technical limitations that however logic need some thought to grasp) to be behaving different in the jxpath view
next to this observation however I'ld like to question the real-life relevance: IMHO the advantage of jxpath under the hood of the binding is that it allows for reusing the syntax-metafor of xpath regardless of the backend. Being the mix of using slashes over dots, not needing parentheses and having a single expression that equally works for getting and setting (LHV/RHV)
When it would work "regardless of the backend" ...
yeah, but currently the regardless only realtes to the syntax being portable over to the backend, not the semantics
or in other words: the semantics are imposed onto the backend by jxpath
what I want to say is: it DOES work, but only if the backends are equal in the jxpath sense of the word :-)
I don't see it as a common use case that people during the lifetime would want to switch the backend from XML to JavaBeans (or vice versa) and actually expect to have all binding expressions work 'justlikethat'.
While developing we often encoupled the backend from the frontend. The interface between both was a simple XML structure. The frontend knows what it will get, the backend what it has to deliver when the system is running. This allows independent development. Additionally we had static test XML files for the frontend, so that "real life" test is possible. The switching was just in the sitemap (XML from disk or from backend). Now I would have to maintain two binding files.
hm, all falls with the line 'backend knows what it has to deliver'
is that *knowing* really according to 'semantics as imposed by jxpath' and not according to 'most naive/simplistic view of the structure'?
I could go on questioning if the static XML is a big gain over a static hard-coded Java that builds some bean instances rather then load them from the real backend... however, thinking about it constructively I think here and now the best we can do is build some docos/catalogue offering the real XML/jxpath view on some classic bean constructs?
regards, -marc= -- Marc Portier http://outerthought.org/ Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center Read my weblog at http://blogs.cocoondev.org/mpo/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
