> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Namens Nico Klasens
> Verzonden: zaterdag 15 januari 2005 17:15
> Aan: 'Michiel Meeuwissen'; [email protected]
> Onderwerp: RE: [Developers] image thumbnails in the wizard list items
>
>
> >Nico Klasens wrote:
> >> You only have to do something like this
> >>
> >> <item displaytype="image">
> >> <field ftype="data" name="title" />
> >> <field ftype="startwizard"
> >wizardname="config/images/images"
> >> />
> >> </item>
> >>
> >> The displaytype will instruct the editwizard to genereate
> a img-src
> >> to
> >> the imageservlet. The imageservlet does only support one field
> >> (handle) so why should the editwizards support more?
> >
> > I find it no matter of support but of clear syntax. I think
> > it would make complete sense that if you type <field
> > ftype="data" name="handle"
> > /> that it should than generate a img-src to the
> > image-servlet? What else should it do?
>
> Generate an a-href download link for the attachment handle?
>
> The editwizard generate the attributes dttype and ftype for
> every field in the xml which is passed to the
> xsl-translation. For the image-handle they are
> dttype='binary' and ftype='image' For the attachment-handle
> they are dttype='binary' and ftype='file' When the ftype is
> changed to data then the xsl can't determine what it is.
> Solution for this is to add an extra ftype imagedata
ok, that makes sense.
>
> <xsl:template name="ftype-imagedata">
> <img src="{node:function($cloud, string(@number),
> concat('servletpath(', $cloudkey,
> ',cache(', $imagesize, '))'))}"
> hspace="0" vspace="0" border="0"
> title="[EMAIL PROTECTED]'description']}"/>
> </xsl:template>
>
> > 'displaytype="images"' would not have been needed, and would
> > not need documentation.
>
> A neat thing about the displaytype is that it displays the
> image next to all other fields. An extended wizard.xsl could
> use the displaytype to display the list items differently. It
> is one of the extension points in the wizard definitions to
> influence the generated html for the wizards.
i see. From that perspective it is more logical. one remark could be
that you would choose for something linke displaytype="containsimage",
becouse the current form seems have an other meaning,ie that the content
of the item attribute should be displayd as an image. But I understand
the idear now anyway.
thanks,
Ernst
>
> > Btw, your point that image-servlet can only serve 'handle' is
> > good, it seems easy to fix that when it is needed, but I
> > hardly think it currently is, because I've never heard any
> > complaints from someone who wanted 2 handle fields in his
> > record or so. But it is imaginable, perhaps we'd ought to
> > make it possible once...
>
> An Extreme programming rule: Do The Simplest Thing That Could
> Possibly Work. The requirement now is to have one handle
> field and the current implementation does work. No idea why
> it should be over-designed.
>
> Nico
>
> _______________________________________________
> Developers mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.mmbase.org/mailman/listinfo/developers
>
_______________________________________________
Developers mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.mmbase.org/mailman/listinfo/developers
