Hello Emily,
> Is there anyway we can convince you to use the Apache license rather then
> the GPL? That would bring your project base into the same license as GWT,
> so it would be easier to grab code.
I switched the project to Apache 2 a few weeks ago, but the classes
that have comments on them still say it's under the LGPL. I'll update
that as soon as I can.
> I like the idea of a set of widgets used to rapidly create forms. It will
> be a little tricky to get right, because we'd want to explicitly not make
> any assumptions about data binding or validation. How cleanly we can do
> that influences how much we should try this before the data
> binding/validation framework is in place.
I don't think it'll integrate with the data binding or validation at
all. I'll make sure to make it as extensible as possible, but I don't
think that visibility logic that deals with presentation needs to
integrate with validation or data binding. However, I think that it
will fit in a general forms framework where data binding and
validation could live.
> The Questions could then implement HasValue<String/Boolean/Integer> and fire
> SelectionEvents. This would make it easy for the QuestionLayoutPanel to
> figure out when to fire a given QuestionLayoutRule, where a
> QuestionLayoutRule takes in a set of Questions and is activated if any of
> those Questions change state. The hope is that we could then share the
> same visual framework with a variety of data-binding and validation
> frameworks, as we are not putting anything but presentation code into the
> actual Question widgets. For instance, it might be possible to generate at
> compile time QuestionPanel from an xforms template :-)
>
> So, here is some sample code.
> QuestionPanel MedicalForm = new QuestionPanel();
> List<String> yesNoMaybe = ListUtil.create("yes","no", "maybe");
> RadioButtonQuestion gender = new RadioButtonQuestion("gender",
> yesNoMaybe);
> CheckBoxQuestion pregnant = new CheckBoxQuestion("Are you pregnant?",
> yesNoMaybe);
> MedicalForm.add(gender);
> MedicalForm.addQuestionLayoutRule(new InsertIfEqualRule(gender,"yes",
> pregnant));
I really like your suggestions for the way the panel and layout rules
should work. I'm not really sure about creating a new widget
hierarchy, though. My initial goal was to allow developers to use any
widget they like and not use some new widget hierarchy. Getting data
out of the widgets can either be handled through the HasValue<T>
interface or using DataManagers as a stop gap for GWT core widgets.
Otherwise, I would hope it could work with any widget type.
Regards,
Arthur Kalmenson
On Oct 8, 10:43 pm, "Emily Crutcher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there anyway we can convince you to use the Apache license rather then
> the GPL? That would bring your project base into the same license as GWT,
> so it would be easier to grab code.
>
> I like the idea of a set of widgets used to rapidly create forms. It will
> be a little tricky to get right, because we'd want to explicitly not make
> any assumptions about data binding or validation. How cleanly we can do
> that influences how much we should try this before the data
> binding/validation framework is in place.
>
> What about the idea of creating a QuestionWidget hierarchy? Then we would
> have Questions like TextQuestion, RadioButtonQuestion, and, of course a
> QuestionPanel, where the QuestionPanel takes in a set of QuestionWidgets
> and QuestionLayoutRules.
>
> The Questions could then implement HasValue<String/Boolean/Integer> and fire
> SelectionEvents. This would make it easy for the QuestionLayoutPanel to
> figure out when to fire a given QuestionLayoutRule, where a
> QuestionLayoutRule takes in a set of Questions and is activated if any of
> those Questions change state. The hope is that we could then share the
> same visual framework with a variety of data-binding and validation
> frameworks, as we are not putting anything but presentation code into the
> actual Question widgets. For instance, it might be possible to generate at
> compile time QuestionPanel from an xforms template :-)
>
> So, here is some sample code.
> QuestionPanel MedicalForm = new QuestionPanel();
> List<String> yesNoMaybe = ListUtil.create("yes","no", "maybe");
> RadioButtonQuestion gender = new RadioButtonQuestion("gender",
> yesNoMaybe);
> CheckBoxQuestion pregnant = new CheckBoxQuestion("Are you pregnant?",
> yesNoMaybe);
> MedicalForm.add(gender);
> MedicalForm.addQuestionLayoutRule(new InsertIfEqualRule(gender,"yes",
> pregnant));
>
> Cheers,
>
> Emily
>
> On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 4:42 PM, Arthur Kalmenson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > As I mentioned before (http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-
> > Toolkit-Contributors/browse_thread/thread/b696e7319fc6bea/), I'm
> > looking to contribute our project back to the incubator as I refactor/
> > rebuild it. One of the main things that we were looking to simplify
> > was visibility management.
>
> > In our particular use cases, almost every application we build has a
> > relatively extensive form with complex visibility logic. For example,
> > if the user presses "Yes" on a radio button, another few fields open
> > up and they fill those fields out. The way that this logic is
> > currently done in GWT is through listeners and a lot of manual work.
> > The module that we created was suppose to simplify this. Here's what
> > we have so far.
>
> > We have something called a FormatPanel that allows you to make calls
> > like showIfSet(Widget a, Widget b, VisibilityRule rule). The
> > VisibilityRule sets listeners and so receives events from widgets a
> > and b. It then determines if widget "b" should be shown depending on
> > the value of widget a. There is also a hideIfSet() method.
>
> > Does this approach make sense? Let me know what you think. I'll
> > continue updating this part of the project and I'll try to post some
> > code and more concrete examples in the next few days. I'm just
> > wondering if the approach makes sense to people. Thank you.
>
> > Regards,
> > Arthur Kalmenson
>
> --
> "There are only 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand
> binary, and those who don't"
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
