>From my experience with deform this could be rather complicated. Creating custom templates for widgets is easy enough, but you'd still have to synchronize the corresponding css and js. E.g. I have custom templates table_sequence.pt and table_sequence_item.pt to render a sequence of widgets as table instead of an ul-element, which requires changing deform.js to make the "add" and "remove" buttons still work. So as long as you do not have to create a new template for each new form, it's ok i guess. But I think requirements like "< 5 radio buttons should be rendered inline, but more than 5 as table" would already be a headache to implement. regards robert
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 8:00 AM, BruceC <[email protected]> wrote: > To my mind there are 2 possible approaches here: > 1. Modify pyramid_simpleform so that it can use a schema generated by > Colander rather than FormEncode (and in a perfect world, be able to > define form widgets in that schema as well) > 2. Modify Deform so that it provides pyramid_simpleform-type methods > for rendering the individual parts of a form in a template. > > My personal preference would be for the latter. I like Deform & > Colander. I like being able to define a form schema that specifies the > widget & the validation all in the one place. If you have an > enterprise app with over a hundred forms, things can get messy pretty > quickly :) > > Anyone have any tips on where you might start looking at modifying > Deform to allow it to render specific form parts? > > -BruceC > > On Jan 23, 12:35 pm, Chris McDonough <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Sun, 2012-01-22 at 19:59 -0500, Alex Clark wrote: >> > On 1/22/12 7:54 PM, BruceC wrote: >> > > Deform& Colandar is fantastic if you don't care how your form is >> > > displayed in layout terms, but if you need to specify layout, there is >> > > no clear way to do that. For some of us, that is the crucial >> > > difference determining which forms framework to adopt. If deform had >> > > some simpleform-type form field rendering methods - eg $ >> > > { myform.field('foo').label() }, ${ myform.field('foo').value() }& $ >> > > { myform.field('foo').errors() } - that would definitely make it a >> > > more broadly functional package imho... >> >> > FWIW I'm using deform for fun & profit and would like to see this too. >> >> > Maybe mcdonc could lay out a way for us to get there, assuming someone >> > wants to take on the work. >> >> The basic way is laid out in pyramid_simpleform right now, I think. >> simpleform-style imperative form rendering using a Colander schema >> rather than FormEncode. Then presumably you could share your schemas >> between Deform and whatever-that-thing-gets-called. Devil's in the >> details of course. >> >> - C > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "pylons-discuss" 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/pylons-discuss?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pylons-discuss" 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/pylons-discuss?hl=en.
