well, a simple wrapper tag like I showed should do it then.  just, do
the merge on the table tag inside it so you can pass customizations on
to the table tag.

On Apr 27, 4:43 pm, Henry Baragar <[email protected]>
wrote:
> I would not call it an order requirement:  all the fields are the same,
> with the exception of the first one.  And yes, I want to avoid having to
> re-enter the field list.
>
> Henry
>
> ps.  There is quite a bit of savings because I stripped out the other
> dozen lines that would obscure the essence of the problem.  HB
>
>
>
> kevinpfromnm wrote:
> > damnit, didn't see the order requirement.  still the same, just
> > override the fields= on one of the calls.
>
> > again though, unless you've got more customization than in your
> > example, you're not saving much.
>
> > On Apr 27, 3:17 pm, kevinpfromnm <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> sure, though if it's only a generic table you're not getting much
> >> savings.
> >> <def tag="engagement-table">
> >>   <table fields="player, collectable..." merge />
> >> </def>
> >> then just call <engagement-table:collection_name_goes_here /> in the
> >> appropriate place.
>
> >> On Apr 27, 12:28 pm, Henry Baragar <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> Sorry about the subject line, but I could not come up with a better
> >>> description...
>
> >>> I have the following models (for a sports league application):
>
> >>>     * Play
> >>>           o belongs to Player
> >>>           o belongs to Engagement
> >>>           o has score, field1, field2, etc.
> >>>     * Player
> >>>           o has many match_record, class name of Play
> >>>     * Engagement
> >>>           o has many line_up, class name of Play
>
> >>> I need to show following information in two tables:
>
> >>>    1. engagement, score, field1, field2, etc.
> >>>    2. player, score, field1, field2, etc.
>
> >>> Where the first one is for the match_record on the player show page and
> >>> the second one is for the line_up on the engagements page.
>
> >>> As you can see, its really the same information.  The only differences 
> >>> are:
>
> >>>    1. which collection to use
> >>>    2. which first column to use
>
> >>> Is it possible to define a tag that nicely handles both tables?
>
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Henry
>
> >>> ps.  Here is the relevant code I am using for both tables:
>
> >>>    1. On the players show page:
> >>>           * <table:match_record fields="engagement, collectable,
> >>>             collected, owing" />
> >>>    2. On the engagements show page:
> >>>           * <table:line_up fields="player, collectable, collected, owing" 
> >>> />
>
> >>> --
> >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> >>> "Hobo Users" group.
> >>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
> >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
> >>> [email protected].
> >>> For more options, visit this group 
> >>> athttp://groups.google.com/group/hobousers?hl=en.
>
> >> --
> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> >> "Hobo Users" group.
> >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
> >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
> >> [email protected].
> >> For more options, visit this group 
> >> athttp://groups.google.com/group/hobousers?hl=en.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Hobo Users" group.
> To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
> [email protected].
> For more options, visit this group 
> athttp://groups.google.com/group/hobousers?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Hobo 
Users" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/hobousers?hl=en.

Reply via email to