Bruno Dumon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Sun, 2006-06-18 at 11:03 +0200, Bruno Dumon wrote: > > On Thu, 2006-06-15 at 23:49 +0200, Fred Vos wrote: > <snip/> > > > Another > > > thing that is necessary is the possibility to add > key-value pairs to every > > > folder and node, available in the form template. To > create a directory tree > > > with directories and files, showing filename, size, date > et cetera, then > > > requires the use of a directory generator and > transforming its output to an > > > xml document that can be used in the tree widget. > > > > I don't think the current tree model implementation forbids > to add such > > key-value pairs (or any sort of attribute) to your own tree node > > implementation. It might of course be considered to make this a > > standarized concept. > > I didn't think of this before, but the example you have given is > perfectly possible with the SourceTreeModel today, without any work at > all (no pipelines to set up, no XSL to write, and in addition branches > are only loaded on demand and file name filtering is > possible). So from > a user POV, using the specific SourceTreeModel really is > easier in this case. I understand this was just an example though.
I think it was an example to show that an XMLTreeModel can be used as a SourceTreeModel, but not the other way around. In any case, I need a tree widget that can take its input from a cocoon pipeline. At the moment I'm using Fred's (or trying to, so far), but getting rid of that Xom dependency would be very nice indeed. mcv.
