For example, I have requests. Every request is of a particular nature. Every
nature specifies a set of location "types"--for example a Transportation
request has a "From" and a "To"--and each type has a set of allowed location
"kinds"--for example, transportation can be from/to a street address, hospital,
etc., while a Hospital Visitation has one location type ("Location") which only
has one location kind (hospital).
Now, when you are entering a request, once you select your nature, you are
shown a list of location types, each of which you have to choose the location
kind for. When you select the location kind of a location type, you then see
the fields for that location kind. For example a street address has text fields
while a hospital location has two dropdowns and a text field.
The point being, that each location type is a switch, depending on whether a
location kind has been selected for it. But they are inside an xml node that is
reused for each location type, which has to be inside the snippet. But there is
static formatting there.
Nested snippets isn't a great solution here because the inner xml needs access
to the location being iterated in the outer snippet, and class variables are
less preferable than direct scope access.
Thanks!
-------------------------------------
David Pollak<[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 11:29 AM, Naftoli Gugenheim <[email protected]>wrote:
>
> By context I mean where it is in the xml.
> For example, br's between the "switch" and everything else.
> In other words, your code implements a "switch." But where are you putting
> it back in the view? chooseTemplate etc. extract data "out of context" as
> oppo'sed to bind which is "in place." And if indeed you are calling it from
> within bind then why is it better than a NodeSeq function (FuncBindParam)?
Put the static content outside the snippet invocation:
<lift:foo> <b>some text</b>
<choose:one>....</choose:one>
<choose:two>....</choose:two>
some more stuff
</lift:foo>
Is exactly the same as:
<b>some text</b>
<lift:foo> <choose:one>....</choose:one>
<choose:two>....</choose:two>
</lift:foo>
some more stuff
The snippet operates on the content that must be modified and the static
text is outside the snippet invocation.
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> -------------------------------------
> David Pollak<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 11:18 AM, Naftoli Gugenheim <[email protected]
> >wrote:
>
> > The problem with using the template methods is that they pull the node
> out
> > of context. So if I need to let the view html file decide how everything
> is
> > assembled, then these calls to the template methods have to be used
> inside a
> > bind. You can put the alternatives inside a dedicated parent xml node and
> > bind on that (sometimes), but what have I saved?
>
>
> I don't understand your question.
>
> I don't understand the pattern you are trying to use.
>
> I don't understand what kind of context a node might have other than
> binding
> based on a condition.
>
> What does the code that I wrote not do that your code does?
>
>
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > -------------------------------------
> > David Pollak<[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 9:28 AM, Naftoli Gugenheim <[email protected]
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > Here's some view xhtml:
> > >>
> > >> <req:noClient>
> > >
> > > <label for="clientquery">Client </label>
> > >
> > > <client:query id="clientquery" size="5"/>
> > >
> > > <client:set />
> > >
> > > </req:noClient>
> > >
> > > <req:client>
> > >
> > > Client <client:unset />
> > >
> > > <client:edit><client:name /></client:edit><br />
> > >
> > > <client:details />
> > >
> > > </req:client>
> > >
> > > <hr />
> > >
> > >
> >
> > How about:
> >
> > def doBinding(xhtml: NodeSeq): NodeSeq = {
> > def doClientBind(c: Client): Box[NodeSeq] =
> > Helpers.template(xhtml, "req", "client").map(t => bind("client", t,
> > ...))
> >
> > def doClientFreeBind: Box[NodeSeq] =
> > Helpers.template(xhtml, "req", "noClient").map(t => bind("client", t,
> > ...))
> >
> > (client.flatMap(doClientBind) or doClientFreeBind) openOr NodeSeq.Empty
> > }
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > And here's some snippet code:
> > >
> > >> xhtml.bind("req",
> > >
> > > "noClient" -> noClient _,
> > >
> > > "client" -> hasClient _,
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > )
> > >
> > > def noClient(xhtml: NodeSeq) = {
> > >
> > > var clientQuery: String = ""
> > >
> > > def queryClient {
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > }
> > >
> > > client match {
> > >
> > > case None =>
> > >
> > > xhtml.bind("client",
> > >
> > > "query" -> keepAttrs(SHtml.text(clientQuery, clientQuery =
> > _)),
> > >
> > > "set" -> SHtml.submit(?(">"), ()=>queryClient)
> > >
> > > )
> > >
> > > case Some(_) =>
> > >
> > > NodeSeq.Empty
> > >
> > > }
> > >
> > > }
> > >
> > >
> > > So both alternatives are always bound to a NodeSeq=>NodeSeq function,
> and
> > > both functions have to check if client is None or a Some, and always
> one
> > > function returns NodeSeq.Empty and the other one something useful.
> > > So my question is not, "how can I do xxx," but, "is there a 'DRY'er or
> > more
> > > concise way to do it."
> > > In another place I used a slightly different technique:
> > >
> > >> val emptyFn = (ns: NodeSeq) => NodeSeq.Empty
> > >
> > > def noLocationKind = (ns: NodeSeq) => ...
> > >
> > > def hasLocationKind(kind: LocKind#Value) = (ns:NodeSeq) => ...
> > >
> > > ns.bind("nlt",
> > >
> > > // "name" -> {(ns:NodeSeq)=>Text("foo")},
> > >
> > > "locKind" -> lkOpt.map(hasLocationKind).getOrElse(emptyFn),
> > >
> > > "noLocKind" -> (if(lkOpt==None) noLocationKind else
> emptyFn)
> > >
> > > ).bind("nlt","name"->nlt.name.is)
> > >
> > > Where lkOpt is the value that can be None or a Some. Instead of letting
> > the
> > > functions check None/Some, I check outside the function. But it still
> > seems
> > > that in theory it could be simplified.
> > > chooseTemplate doesn't solve the problem that the alternative NodeSeq
> has
> > > to be transformed to NodeSeq.Empty.
> > > P.S. Notice that I'm using my implicit to call bind on the NodeSeq :)
> > > P.P.S If you look closely, there's another problem that I had. For some
> > > reason the first "name" -> ... was getting ignored, and it only worked
> in
> > > the second bind.
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 10:49 AM, David Pollak <
> > > [email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I really need to see the resulting view code that you'd like to see
> > >> depending on the conditions.
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 7:47 AM, Naftoli Gugenheim <
> [email protected]
> > >wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> No, I meant that this pattern of parts of the view being alternatives
> > to
> > >>> each other repeats, in other words the view has several pairs of
> > >>> alternatives.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> I don't understand why the example doesn't allow for alternatives that
> > >> repeat.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> -------------------------------------
> > >>> David Pollak<[email protected]> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 8:44 PM, Naftoli Gugenheim <
> > [email protected]
> > >>> >wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> >
> > >>> > What's the smartest / most concise way to achieve the following in
> > the
> > >>> > corresponding view xhtml and snippet code:
> > >>> > Parts of the view have to change, depending on whether something is
> > >>> set.
> > >>> > For example, in the area where you select the client, if the client
> > is
> > >>> None,
> > >>> > then it displays an interface to select a client. If it's set to a
> > Some
> > >>> then
> > >>> > it displays the client's details with a button to unset it. This
> > >>> pattern is
> > >>> > repeated.
> > >>> > My current strategy is to have two elements, req:noClient and
> > >>> req:client,
> > >>> > which have different xhtml contents. Then in the snippet I bind
> them
> > to
> > >>> two
> > >>> > NodeSeq functions, one that binds useful contents when the client
> is
> > >>> None
> > >>> > and returns NodeSeq.Empty otherwise; and another function that
> binds
> > >>> when
> > >>> > it's a Some and returns Empty otherwise. However, it seems to be
> > >>> somewhat
> > >>> > redundant in theory.
> > >>> > So does anyone have a better way of switching view parts?
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> If it's repeated, then <lift:embed /> the part that you need.
> > >>>
> > >>> <lift:MaybeClient>
> > >>> <client:yes><lift:embed
> > >>> what="/templates/client_edit.html"/></client:yes>
> > >>> <client:no><lift:embed
> > >>> what="/templates/client_chooser.html"/><client:no>
> > >>> </lift:MaybeClient>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> >
> > >>> > Thanks.
> > >>> >
> > >>> >
> > >>> >
> > >>> > >
> > >>> >
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>> Lift, the simply functional web framework http://liftweb.net
> > >>> Beginning Scala http://www.apress.com/book/view/1430219890
> > >>> Follow me: http://twitter.com/dpp
> > >>> Git some: http://github.com/dpp
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Lift, the simply functional web framework http://liftweb.net
> > >> Beginning Scala http://www.apress.com/book/view/1430219890
> > >> Follow me: http://twitter.com/dpp
> > >> Git some: http://github.com/dpp
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Lift, the simply functional web framework http://liftweb.net
> > Beginning Scala http://www.apress.com/book/view/1430219890
> > Follow me: http://twitter.com/dpp
> > Git some: http://github.com/dpp
> >
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Lift, the simply functional web framework http://liftweb.net
> Beginning Scala http://www.apress.com/book/view/1430219890
> Follow me: http://twitter.com/dpp
> Git some: http://github.com/dpp
>
>
>
> >
>
--
Lift, the simply functional web framework http://liftweb.net
Beginning Scala http://www.apress.com/book/view/1430219890
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
