Hi,Sylvain:
I have thought about invisible state,and studied the mail archive about
widget's state.
Is it now I can't just use flowscript to hide a widget ?
Roy Huang
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sylvain Wallez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 9:41 PM
Subject: Re: Question and Suggessions about forms block in 2.1.6
> roy huang wrote:
>
> >Hi,all:
> > in 2.1.6,Forms add widget state.I have test it yesterday and found some
> > problems and questions.
> > Questions:
> > In V2 flowscript,I can set widget state:
> > var name=form.lookupWidget("name");
> > name.state="disabled";
> > but in V1,I can get but set will produce an error:
> > var name=form.lookupWidget("name");
> > print(name.state); //works here
> > name.state="disabled"; //error here.
> > The error is like can't convert disabled to Widgetstate ....
> > How can I change a widget's state in V1?
> >
> >
>
> Use name.setWidgetState(WidgetState.DISABLED)
>
> > Suggestions:
> > I use forms block to develop a real application,some application's
> > requirements here:
> > i) Widgets can't be displayed under some conditions
> > ii) Widgets should be read-only under some conditions
> > In 2.1.5.1,My solutions are:
> > To i),Use jxtemplates with <jx:if> to control display the widget or not
> > To ii),a)Use jxtemplates with <jx:if> to add <fi:styling> disabled to
> > the widget
> > b)Use two widget,one is <fd:field> another is <fd:output>,using
> > <jx:if> to control display one of them.If need to edit ,display the field
> > widget,if need to display only ,make the field widget hidden and display
> > the output widget(set its value using flowscript).I can't using <fi:styling
> > type="output"/> because this will make the field widget's value empty after
> > save.
> > I don't like these solutions because they all need coding in
> > jxtemplate,mix UI and logic.
> >
> > 2.1.6 add widget state,now has 3 state:active,disabled,invisible.It
> > seems disabled and invisible state can help me to make a better
> > solutions,but here's the problem:
> > 1.State disabled render a widget with disabled attribute,just like my
> > solution ii) a),but can't do the same effaces like ii).b).I try to modify
> > forms-field-styling.xsl,found if only display value,the field widget's
> > value will be empty after save.
> > 2.State invisible just make a widget can't be used,and I can't use it
> > for i) because if my style page using the invisible widget will produce
> > exception like don't have this element ...
> >
> > My suggestions are:
> > A)If a widget's state is invisible,let render knows it is
> > invisible,don't delete the widget.We can make the widget invisible by
> > modify forms-field-styling.xsl.
> >
> >
>
> No, invisible is, as its name implies, is really *not visible*.
>
> What you describe here comes again to an additional "output" state that
> I think we should add, considering the vast number of use cases where it
> could be used.
>
> > B)To state disabled,we can keep current display method using input
> > disabled attributed,but the widget's value shouldn't get from the
> > request.This allow user adjust forms-field-styling.xsl to just display text
> > in final page.
> > C)If B) is not a good suggestion,then make <fi:styling="output"/> just
> > like <fd:output> to keep it's original value or make it possible to change
> > one widget's type form field to output.
> >
> >
>
> That's what an "output" state would allow.
>
> How does that sound?
>
> Sylvain
>
> --
> Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies
> http://www.apache.org/~sylvain http://www.anyware-tech.com
> { XML, Java, Cocoon, OpenSource }*{ Training, Consulting, Projects }
>
>
