Mark Lundquist wrote:
On Jun 21, 2005, at 8:41 AM, Mark Lundquist wrote:
On Jun 20, 2005, at 11:42 PM, Sylvain Wallez wrote:
BTW, why do you prefer v2 rather than v1?
<..schnip!..>
One thing I don't care so much for in v2 is the idiom of attaching
view data as properties of the widget tree root. The minimalist
approach (losing 'bizData') was clever, but in actual practice I find
that I really like having one locus of transfer of data between the
flowscript and the presentation, so I usually end up with something
like this anyway:
w.viewData =
{
schtuff: foobar,
etc: otherStuff
};
form.showForm ('whatev');
Uh? Didn't knew about that, and looks hacky IMO.
...and so I guess I'd rather have it as an explicit parameter (and
also not needing to have 'viewData.' at the head of the expression
path within the JX template).
While on the subject... since I am "Mr. Anal Nomenclature Pants", I
would vote for changing 'bizData' to 'viewData' (as in v3)... a much
better name IMHO :-)
And I *totally* agree with you, as this data is exclusively prepared for
and consumed by the view!
Sylvain
--
Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies
http://apache.org/~sylvain http://anyware-tech.com
Apache Software Foundation Member Research & Technology Director
