I will have a think about it and get back to you.
On Aug 11, 1:38 pm, Naftoli Gugenheim <[email protected]> wrote:
> Great. So what kind of syntax do you want to see? What do you think of my
> bindSwitch syntax?
>
> -------------------------------------
>
> george<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I've been following this thread with interest because I have a very
> similar use case. I also want to show different form fields depending
> on what the user previously entered.
>
> My solution was to dynamically create the bind params and bind Empty
> to anything irrelevant.
>
> I thought this felt a bit awkward, but I couldn't see a better
> alternative being new to both Lift and Scala.
>
> So I am also interested in finding a better way to do this.
>
> On Aug 10, 8:05 pm, Naftoli Gugenheim <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > 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>...
>
> read more »
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
