I find #2 nice though a bit cumbersome and I wonder if other dependencies have been considerd (such as a field having any value/no value, having values within a range, not having certain values, etc.).
Which makes me hesitant to add this now (At least without a vote).
I admit that #2 is just a start for dependencies between fields but they're already very usefull in our project.
Maybe it is a better idea to incorporate this in the fieldtypes project (or at least to set up a framework for it). I'm not sure how well that fits the project decription though... Michiel?
The syntax of the dynamic wizardnames could be much better, but I find the mechanism of being able to use any (virtual) field as a wizardname very powerfull.
Yes, I merely think that:
<mm:field name="myfieldname" ftype="startwizard" />
would be a bit easier to understand. Obvipously we should check whether this is backwards compatible...
-- Pierre van Rooden Mediapark, C 107 tel. +31 (0)35 6772815 "Never summon anything bigger than your head."
