On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Marius <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > On Jan 6, 7:15 pm, "David Pollak" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I also added > > BindHelpers.attr("tag"): Option[NodeSeq] > > so you can do something like: > > > > <span class={BindHelpers.attr("class")>...</span> > > > > and: > > BindHelpers.attr("prefix", "tag") > > I think it is committed to curAttr which personally I'm not a fan ... > Doyou mind if I change it to attr or nodeAttr ? Go for it. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > David > > > > On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 9:13 AM, Marius <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Very cool Dave ! > > > > > thx, > > > Marius > > > > > On Jan 6, 4:36 pm, "David Pollak" <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > Folks, > > > > > > I'm about to commit up a non-breaking solution. > > > > > > In bind, you can call: > > > > BindHelpers.bindNodes.value: List[NodeSeq] > > > > BindHelpers.currentNode.value: Elem > > > > > > bindNodes is a list of the nodes that were passed into bind with the > more > > > > current node at the head of the list. If you're doing hierarchical > > > binding, > > > > you can see all the nodes that were passed into bind this was. > > > > > > currentNode is available to the BindParam and it contains the parent > Elem > > > to > > > > the NodeSeq that was passed into your BindParam. You can inspect > > > attributes > > > > to your heart's content. > > > > > > Give it an hour or two for these changes to make their way through > > > Hudson. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > David > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 4:50 AM, Marc Boschma > > > > <[email protected] <marc%[email protected]> < > marc%[email protected] <marc%[email protected]>>< > > > marc%[email protected] <marc%[email protected]> < > marc%[email protected] <marc%[email protected]>>> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > I've just had a thought as to how to make it not a breaking change. > > > > > > > Leave your change "calcValue(s.child) I just call calcValue(s)" > > > > > > > change: > > > > > case class FuncBindParam(name: String, value: NodeSeq => NodeSeq) > > > > > extends Tuple2(name, value) with BindParam { > > > > > def calcValue(in: NodeSeq): NodeSeq = value(in) > > > > > } > > > > > > > to: > > > > > case class FuncBindParam(name: String, value: NodeSeq => NodeSeq) > > > > > extends Tuple2(name, value) with BindParam { > > > > > def calcValue(in: NodeSeq): NodeSeq = value(in.child) > > > > > } > > > > > > > That should prevent old code breaking... which would be a good > > > > > thing(tm) given the amount of code that uses bind(...) > > > > > > > then create something like: > > > > > > > case class FuncMetaDataBindParam(name: String, value: (MetaData, > > > > > NodeSeq) => NodeSeq) extends Tuple2(name, value) with BindParam { > > > > > def calcValue(in: NodeSeq): NodeSeq = value(in.attributes, > > > > > in.child) > > > > > } > > > > > > > along with adding to class SuperArrowAssoc... > > > > > def ->(in: (MetaData, NodeSeq) => NodeSeq) = > > > > > FuncMetaDataBindParam(name, in) > > > > > > > That would be fairly clean... > > > > > > > ----- > > > > > > > Maybe for those that actually want the full node add: > > > > > > > case class FuncBoxBindParam(name: String, value: Box(NodeSeq) => > > > > > NodeSeq) extends Tuple2(name, value) with BindParam { > > > > > def calcValue(in: NodeSeq): NodeSeq = value(Full(in)) > > > > > } > > > > > > > and you could go nuts and: > > > > > > > case class FuncPrefixAndLabelBindParam(name: String, value: > > > > > (String, String, NodeSeq) => NodeSeq) extends Tuple2(name, value) > with > > > > > BindParam { > > > > > def calcValue(in: NodeSeq): NodeSeq = value(in.prefix, > in.label, > > > > > in.child) > > > > > } > > > > > > > etc... > > > > > > > On 06/01/2009, at 10:51 PM, Marc Boschma wrote: > > > > > > > > (you can tel I'm sleeping well :/ - too hot) > > > > > > > > The toList function is one of David's (todo example app). I do > love > > > > > > the ability to curry :) > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > On 06/01/2009, at 9:51 PM, Marius wrote: > > > > > > > >> On Jan 6, 12:47 pm, Marc Boschma > > > > > >> <[email protected]<marc%[email protected]> > <marc%[email protected] <marc%[email protected]>> > > > <marc%[email protected] <marc%[email protected]> < > marc%[email protected] <marc%[email protected]>>>> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > >>> A quick just before going to bed reaction is that your change > would > > > > > >>> solve the issue. > > > > > > > >> Yeah it would ... (I mean it worked fine in my tests) > > > > > > > >>> It is interesting you focused on the "exclude" and not the > > > > > >>> "list" (which is what I have been playing with). I actually > missed > > > > > >>> it > > > > > >>> was a similar case... > > > > > > > >> I just picked it randomly :) ... I've seen that you're using a > > > > > >> partially applied function doList ... (which I assume it is a > > > curried > > > > > >> function):) > > > > > > > >>> Regards, > > > > > > > >>> Marc > > > > > > > >>> On 06/01/2009, at 9:24 PM, Marius wrote: > > > > > > > >>>> I just did a minor modification to the lift code so the actual > > > > > >>>> node it > > > > > >>>> is passed to the BindParam and not its child. Now having: > > > > > > > >>>> bind("todo", html, > > > > > >>>> "exclude" -> {node:NodeSeq =>ajaxCheckbox > > > > > >>>> (QueryNotDone, v => {QueryNotDone(v); reDraw})} > > > > > >>>> ... ) > > > > > > > >>>> and the markup <todo:exclude param="Dumb"/> > > > > > > > >>>> The node parameter to the anonymous function will be the > > > > > >>>> <todo:exclude> node and not its children. So now you can > access > > > the > > > > > >>>> "param" attribute from node. The change was in in_bind > function so > > > > > >>>> instead of calling calcValue(s.child) I just call calcValue(s) > > > > > > > >>>> Looking at the existent BindParams this change does not seem > to > > > > > >>>> cause > > > > > >>>> side effects since the calcValue 'in' parameter is used only > for > > > > > >>>> FuncXXXBindParam-s. The impact is that the user's function > would > > > > > >>>> now > > > > > >>>> get the actual node (from which now he can extract attributes) > and > > > > > >>>> not > > > > > >>>> the child nodes. But child nodes from the actual node are > trivial > > > > > >>>> to > > > > > >>>> obtain. > > > > > > > >>>> I did not commit this change as I'd like to see other opinions > to > > > > > >>>> see > > > > > >>>> if there is something that I missed somehow. If we get general > > > > > >>>> consensus of this change I can commit it right away and > announce > > > > > >>>> it as > > > > > >>>> a "breaking change". > > > > > > > >>>> Thoughts? > > > > > > > >>>> Br's, > > > > > >>>> Marius > > > > > > > >>>> On Jan 6, 12:02 pm, Marius <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >>>>> A nice alternative would have been : > > > > > > > >>>>> bind("todo", html, > > > > > >>>>> "exclude" -> {node:NodeSeq > =>ajaxCheckbox > > > > > >>>>> (QueryNotDone, v => {QueryNotDone(v); reDraw})} > > > > > >>>>> ... ) > > > > > > > >>>>> But here the node impersonates the childNodes not the > original > > > > > >>>>> node. > > > > > >>>>> So you still can not access the param attribute below > > > > > > > >>>>> <todo:exclude param="Dumb"/> > > > > > > > >>>>> but you can do it like: > > > > > > > >>>>> <todo:exclude ><meta param="dumb"/></todo:exclude> > > > > > > > >>>>> and you have full access to the meta node as it is a child of > > > > > >>>>> todo:exclude. Hence you can pass state. > > > > > > > >>>>> I know, it is not ideal but should be workable until snippet > > > > > >>>>> child- > > > > > >>>>> node attributes are exposed in one way or another. > > > > > > > >>>>> Br's, > > > > > >>>>> Marius > > > > > > > >>>>> Marc Boschma wrote: > > > > > >>>>>> I have been playing with the ToDo example application and > having > > > > > >>>>>> fun > > > > > >>>>>> in manipulating XML. > > > > > > > >>>>>> With the <todo:list/> node I thought it would be good if the > > > > > >>>>>> XHTML > > > > > >>>>>> designer could pass in some guidance to the doList(...) > method > > > > > >>>>>> used in > > > > > >>>>>> bind(..). ie. <todo:list singular="true">...</todo:list> > > > > > > > >>>>>> Looking over the bind code I noticed that the attributes are > not > > > > > >>>>>> accessible without ending up changing the calcValue method's > > > > > >>>>>> signature. I did initially try to knock up a > > > > > > > >>>>>> case class FuncWithAttrBindParam(name: String, value: > > > (NodeSeq, > > > > > >>>>>> MetaData) => NodeSeq) extends Tuple2(name, value) with > BindParam > > > > > > > >>>>>> and a corresponding > > > > > > > >>>>>> case Some(ns : FuncWithAttrBindParam) => > > > > > > > >>>>>> in in_bind(...), but it all looks like a huge kludge. > > > > > > > >>>>>> It strikes me as a little deficient to be able to utilise > > > > > >>>>>> attributes > > > > > >>>>>> within the context of a snippet and yet not within a bind. I > > > know > > > > > >>>>>> bind > > > > > >>>>>> is quite embedded in lift now, but I think that this > difference > > > > > >>>>>> might > > > > > >>>>>> prove a little frustrating. I know one solution is to just > > > > > >>>>>> create a > > > > > >>>>>> bind("todo", html, > > > > > >>>>>> "exclude" -> > > > > > >>>>>> ajaxCheckbox(QueryNotDone, v => {QueryNotDone(v); reDraw}), > > > > > >>>>>> "list" -> doList(reDraw, > false) > > > > > >>>>>> _, > > > > > >>>>>> "list_singular" -> doList(reDraw, > > > true) > > > > > >>>>>> _) > > > > > > > >>>>>> But I think from the XHtml designer's perspective that is > > > counter > > > > > >>>>>> intuitive... > > > > > > > >>>>>> Thoughts? > > > > > > > >>>>>> ------ > > > > > > > >>>>>> It should be noted that this is different to the case class > > > > > >>>>>> FuncAttrBindParam(name: String, value: NodeSeq => NodeSeq, > > > > > >>>>>> newAttr: > > > > > >>>>>> String) extends BindParam with BindWithAttr. Which > interesting > > > > > >>>>>> enough > > > > > >>>>>> has no corresponding SuperArrowAssoc -> method match. Maybe > > > > > > > >>>>>> def ->(t: Tuple2[String, NodeSeq]) = AttrBindParam(name, > t._2, > > > > > >>>>>> t._1) > > > > > >>>>>> def ->(t: Tuple2[String, NodeSeq => NodeSeq]) = > > > > > >>>>>> FuncAttrBindParam(name, t._2, t._1) > > > > > > > >>>>>> And maybe even... > > > > > > > >>>>>> def ->[T](t: Tuple2[String, T]) = FuncAttrBindParam(name, > > > (name > > > > > >>>>>> -> > > > > > >>>>>> t._2).calcValue _, t._1) > > > > > > > >>>>>> or > > > > > > > >>>>>> def ->[T](t: Tuple2[String, T]) = FuncAttrBindParam(name, > > > (t._1 > > > > > >>>>>> -> > > > > > >>>>>> t._2).calcValue _, t._1) > > > > > > > >>>>>> I'm not sure which is better on the last two... Just a > thought. > > > > > > > >>>>>> Marc > > > > > > -- > > > > Lift, the simply functional web frameworkhttp://liftweb.net > > > > Collaborative Task Managementhttp://much4.us > > > > Follow > > > > ... > > > > read more ยป > > > -- Lift, the simply functional web framework http://liftweb.net Collaborative Task Management http://much4.us Follow me: http://twitter.com/dpp Git some: http://github.com/dpp --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lift" 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/liftweb?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
