Re: Build problem. Was: Re: [Lift] Re: accessing the attributes of the XML node associated with a FuncBindParam in bind(...)
Marc,
Sorry... dunno what to tell you. :-(
David
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 3:47 PM, Marc Boschma
> wrote:
> Very cool indeed, except... I now get:
> [WARNING]
> /Users/marc/src/todo/src/main/scala/com/liftworkshop/snippet/TD.scala:99:
> error: value attr is not a member of object net.liftweb.util.BindHelpers
> [WARNING] val singular = BindHelpers.attr("singular", {s: String =>
> s.toLowerCase match {
> [WARNING]^
> [WARNING] one error found
>
> I've cleaned out my .m2/repository and I always mvn -U clean install... No
> proxies in place. Usually works a charm.
> Frustrating as hell - I feel for those that actually make a living in the
> Java/Maven world (must make a mental note to not quibble so much on what
> those who do want to get paid :)
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Marc
>
> The full context of the code for those interested (David's todo app
> modified thus):
>
> (The top of the file has import net.liftweb._ and import util._)
>
> private def doList(reDraw: () => JsCmd)(html: NodeSeq): NodeSeq = {
> val singular = BindHelpers.attr("singular", {s: String =>
> s.toLowerCase match {
> case "" => true
> case "true" => true
> case "t" => true
> case "yes" => true
> case "y" => true
> case _ => false}}, false)
> val l = toShow
>
> if (singular)
> l.flatMap(td =>
> bind("todo", html,
> "check" -> ajaxCheckbox(td.done,
> v => {td.done(v).save;
> reDraw()}),
> "priority" ->
> ajaxSelect(ToDo.priorityList, Full(td.priority.toString),
> v =>
> {td.priority(v.toInt).save; reDraw()}),
> "desc" -> desc(td, reDraw)
> ))
> else {
> val xhtmls = template(html, l.length)
>
> l.zip(xhtmls).flatMap(n => { val (td , xhtml) = n
> bind("todo", xhtml,
> "check" -> ajaxCheckbox(td.done,
> v => {td.done(v).save;
> reDraw()}),
> "priority" ->
> ajaxSelect(ToDo.priorityList, Full(td.priority.toString),
> v =>
> {td.priority(v.toInt).save; reDraw()}),
> "desc" -> desc(td, reDraw)
> )})
> }
> }
>
> private def template(html: NodeSeq, i: Int): List[NodeSeq] =
> expand(nodeSeq2List(html), i)
>
> private def nodeSeq2List(html: NodeSeq): List[NodeSeq] = {
> val es = html.elements.toList.filter(_ match {
> case Text(s) if (s.trim.length == 0) => false //
> remove whitespace text
> case _ => true
> })
> es match {
> // it was just white space, return it
> case Nil => List(html)
>
> // are all the nodes the same (prefix == lift)?
> // this allows the use of different snippets as the
> different templates...
> case x :: xs if (x.prefix == "lift" &&
> xs.foldLeft(true)( (t, n) => (t && n.prefix
> == x.prefix) )) => es
>
> // are all the nodes the same (prefix, label)?
> case x :: xs => {
> if (xs.foldLeft(true)( (t, n) => (t &&
> n.prefix == x.prefix && n.label == x.label) ))
> es
> else List(html) // nope, return origional
> sequence...
> }
> }
> }
>
> // duplicate a list until it is at least as long as *i*
> private def expand(xhtmls: List[NodeSeq], i: Int): List[NodeSeq] =
> if (i > 0)
> expand(xhtmls ::: xhtmls, i - xhtmls.length)
> else
> xhtmls
>
>
> On 09/01/2009, at 5:08 AM, David Pollak wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 9:54 AM, Marius wrote:
>
>>
>> Ok, I just committed the updates. Now both BindHelpers.attr and S.attr
>> implement AttrHelpers trait where we have a bunch of overloaded apply,
>>
>> I would have liked to use Option[NodeSeq] for S.attr as well but this
>> would be a breaking change and breaking changes are frozen now. So
>> S.attr("someparam") still returns a Box[String]. However I added 2
>> helper function ~ that would return Option[NodeSeq], so you can call
>>
Build problem. Was: Re: [Lift] Re: accessing the attributes of the XML node associated with a FuncBindParam in bind(...)
Very cool indeed, except... I now get:
[WARNING] /Users/marc/src/todo/src/main/scala/com/liftworkshop/snippet/
TD.scala:99: error: value attr is not a member of object
net.liftweb.util.BindHelpers
[WARNING] val singular = BindHelpers.attr("singular", {s: String
=>
s.toLowerCase match {
[WARNING]^
[WARNING] one error found
I've cleaned out my .m2/repository and I always mvn -U clean
install... No proxies in place. Usually works a charm.
Frustrating as hell - I feel for those that actually make a living in
the Java/Maven world (must make a mental note to not quibble so much
on what those who do want to get paid :)
Thoughts?
Marc
The full context of the code for those interested (David's todo app
modified thus):
(The top of the file has import net.liftweb._ and import util._)
private def doList(reDraw: () => JsCmd)(html: NodeSeq):
NodeSeq = {
val singular = BindHelpers.attr("singular", {s:
String => s.toLowerCase match {
case "" => true
case "true" => true
case "t" => true
case "yes" => true
case "y" => true
case _ => false}}, false)
val l = toShow
if (singular)
l.flatMap(td =>
bind("todo", html,
"check" ->
ajaxCheckbox(td.done,
v =>
{td.done(v).save; reDraw()}),
"priority" ->
ajaxSelect(ToDo.priorityList, Full(td.priority.toString),
v =>
{td.priority(v.toInt).save; reDraw()}),
"desc" -> desc(td, reDraw)
))
else {
val xhtmls = template(html, l.length)
l.zip(xhtmls).flatMap(n => { val (td , xhtml)
= n
bind("todo", xhtml,
"check" ->
ajaxCheckbox(td.done,
v =>
{td.done(v).save; reDraw()}),
"priority" ->
ajaxSelect(ToDo.priorityList, Full(td.priority.toString),
v =>
{td.priority(v.toInt).save; reDraw()}),
"desc" -> desc(td, reDraw)
)})
}
}
private def template(html: NodeSeq, i: Int): List[NodeSeq] =
expand(nodeSeq2List(html), i)
private def nodeSeq2List(html: NodeSeq): List[NodeSeq] = {
val es = html.elements.toList.filter(_ match {
case Text(s) if (s.trim.length == 0) =>
false // remove whitespace text
case _ => true
})
es match {
// it was just white space, return it
case Nil => List(html)
// are all the nodes the same (prefix == lift)?
// this allows the use of different snippets
as the different templates...
case x :: xs if (x.prefix == "lift" &&
xs.foldLeft(true)( (t, n) => (t &&
n.prefix == x.prefix) )) => es
// are all the nodes the same (prefix, label)?
case x :: xs => {
if (xs.foldLeft(true)( (t, n) => (t
&& n.prefix == x.prefix && n.label == x.label) ))
es
else List(html) // nope, return
origional sequence...
}
}
}
// duplicate a list until it is at least as long as *i*
private def expand(xhtmls: List[NodeSeq], i: Int):
List[NodeSeq] =
if (i > 0)
expand(xhtmls ::: xhtmls, i - xhtmls.length)
else
xhtmls
On 09/01/2009, at 5:08 AM, David Pollak wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 9:54 AM, Marius
> wrote:
>
> Ok, I just committed the updates. Now both BindHelpers.attr and S.attr
> implement AttrHelpers trait where we have a bunch of overloaded apply,
>
> I would have liked to use Option[NodeSeq] for S.attr as well but this
> would be a breaking change and breaking changes are frozen now. So
> S.attr("someparam") still returns a Box[String]. However I added 2
> helper function ~ that would return Option[NodeSeq], so you can call
> S.attr ~("someparam") and get back an Option[NodeSeq].
>
> I know we could have used implicits to convert from Box[String] to
> Option[NodeSeq] but I feel that this would be an abuse of
[Lift] Re: accessing the attributes of the XML node associated with a FuncBindParam in bind(...)
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 9:54 AM, Marius wrote:
>
> Ok, I just committed the updates. Now both BindHelpers.attr and S.attr
> implement AttrHelpers trait where we have a bunch of overloaded apply,
>
> I would have liked to use Option[NodeSeq] for S.attr as well but this
> would be a breaking change and breaking changes are frozen now. So
> S.attr("someparam") still returns a Box[String]. However I added 2
> helper function ~ that would return Option[NodeSeq], so you can call
> S.attr ~("someparam") and get back an Option[NodeSeq].
>
> I know we could have used implicits to convert from Box[String] to
> Option[NodeSeq] but I feel that this would be an abuse of implicits as
> the use of implicits IMHO should be motivated byt strong design
> rationales and I think this is the case.
>
> Thoughts?
Very cool!
>
>
> Br's,
> Marius
>
> On Jan 7, 7:40 pm, Marius wrote:
> > I'll look into it.
> >
> > On Jan 7, 7:38 pm, "David Pollak"
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Marc,
> >
> > > Good suggestion. Marius -- do you want to do this... maybe even turn
> the
> > > pattern into a trait that we can apply over and over?
> >
> > > Thanks,
> >
> > > David
> >
> > > On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 9:57 PM, Marc Boschma
> > > <
> marc%2blift...@boschma.cx >
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > Cool code! Works nicely...
> > > > Would it make sense to also add something similar to this from S.attr
> ?
> >
> > > > def apply[T](what: String, f: String => T, default: => T): T
> > > > = apply(what).map(f) openOr default
> >
> > > > ie maybe:
> >
> > > > def apply[T](prefix: String, key: String, f: String => T):
> Option[T]
> > > > = apply(prefix, key).map(f)
> > > > def apply[T](key: String, f: String => T): Option[T] =
> apply(key).map(f)
> >
> > > > to BindHelpers.attr ?
> >
> > > > Thinking about it should the applys of the two attr objects be
> aligned
> > > > (Option verses Box, etc) ? It would make the crafting of snippets and
> bind
> > > > functions in terms of access to attributes the same, dropping a
> potential
> > > > barrier to learning lift...
> >
> > > > ie Maybe BindHelpers.attr should have applys with the following
> > > > signatures...
> >
> > > > def apply(key: String): Box[String]
> > > > def apply(prefix: String, key: String): Box[String]
> >
> > > > def apply(key: String, default: => String): String
> > > > def apply(prefix: String, key: String, default: => String):
> String
> >
> > > > def apply[T](key: String, f: String => T, default: => T): T
> > > > def apply[T](prefix: String, key: String, f: String => T,
> default: =>
> > > > T): T
> >
> > > > Lastly, and maybe I am missing something here, but I take it for a
> snippet
> > > > a prefixed attribute isn't accessible via S.attr ???
> >
> > > > Regards,
> >
> > > > Marc
> >
> > > > On 07/01/2009, at 6:54 AM, David Pollak wrote:
> >
> > > > On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Marius
> wrote:
> >
> > > >> Ok ... i just committed some changes:
> >
> > > >> 1. Renamed curAttr to attr
> > > >> 2. The BindHelpers vals are now private but we expose two functions
> > > >> currentNode and bindNodes
> >
> > > > Cool beans!
> >
> > > >> Br's,
> > > >> Marius
> >
> > > >> On Jan 6, 8:37 pm, "David Pollak"
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >> > On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Marius
> > > >> wrote:
> >
> > > >> > > On Jan 6, 7:15 pm, "David Pollak" <
> feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com>
> > > >> > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > I also added
> > > >> > > > BindHelpers.attr("tag"): Option[NodeSeq]
> > > >> > > > so you can do something like:
> >
> > > >> > > > ...
> >
> > > >> > > > 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 <
> marius.dan...@gmail.com>
> > > >> wrote:
> >
> > > >> > > > > Very cool Dave !
> >
> > > >> > > > > thx,
> > > >> > > > > Marius
> >
> > > >> > > > > On Jan 6, 4:36 pm, "David Pollak" <
> feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com>
> > > >> > > > > 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
> > > >> > > > > attrib
[Lift] Re: accessing the attributes of the XML node associated with a FuncBindParam in bind(...)
On Jan 8, 7:54 pm, Marius wrote:
> Ok, I just committed the updates. Now both BindHelpers.attr and S.attr
> implement AttrHelpers trait where we have a bunch of overloaded apply,
>
> I would have liked to use Option[NodeSeq] for S.attr as well but this
> would be a breaking change and breaking changes are frozen now. So
> S.attr("someparam") still returns a Box[String]. However I added 2
> helper function ~ that would return Option[NodeSeq], so you can call
> S.attr ~("someparam") and get back an Option[NodeSeq].
>
> I know we could have used implicits to convert from Box[String] to
> Option[NodeSeq] but I feel that this would be an abuse of implicits as
> the use of implicits IMHO should be motivated byt strong design
> rationales and I think this is the case.
Major typo "and I think this is the case." = "and I think this is NOT
the case.". Sorry.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Br's,
> Marius
>
> On Jan 7, 7:40 pm, Marius wrote:
>
> > I'll look into it.
>
> > On Jan 7, 7:38 pm, "David Pollak"
> > wrote:
>
> > > Marc,
>
> > > Good suggestion. Marius -- do you want to do this... maybe even turn the
> > > pattern into a trait that we can apply over and over?
>
> > > Thanks,
>
> > > David
>
> > > On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 9:57 PM, Marc Boschma
> > >
>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > Cool code! Works nicely...
> > > > Would it make sense to also add something similar to this from S.attr ?
>
> > > > def apply[T](what: String, f: String => T, default: => T): T
> > > > = apply(what).map(f) openOr default
>
> > > > ie maybe:
>
> > > > def apply[T](prefix: String, key: String, f: String => T): Option[T]
> > > > = apply(prefix, key).map(f)
> > > > def apply[T](key: String, f: String => T): Option[T] =
> > > > apply(key).map(f)
>
> > > > to BindHelpers.attr ?
>
> > > > Thinking about it should the applys of the two attr objects be aligned
> > > > (Option verses Box, etc) ? It would make the crafting of snippets and
> > > > bind
> > > > functions in terms of access to attributes the same, dropping a
> > > > potential
> > > > barrier to learning lift...
>
> > > > ie Maybe BindHelpers.attr should have applys with the following
> > > > signatures...
>
> > > > def apply(key: String): Box[String]
> > > > def apply(prefix: String, key: String): Box[String]
>
> > > > def apply(key: String, default: => String): String
> > > > def apply(prefix: String, key: String, default: => String): String
>
> > > > def apply[T](key: String, f: String => T, default: => T): T
> > > > def apply[T](prefix: String, key: String, f: String => T, default:
> > > > =>
> > > > T): T
>
> > > > Lastly, and maybe I am missing something here, but I take it for a
> > > > snippet
> > > > a prefixed attribute isn't accessible via S.attr ???
>
> > > > Regards,
>
> > > > Marc
>
> > > > On 07/01/2009, at 6:54 AM, David Pollak wrote:
>
> > > > On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Marius wrote:
>
> > > >> Ok ... i just committed some changes:
>
> > > >> 1. Renamed curAttr to attr
> > > >> 2. The BindHelpers vals are now private but we expose two functions
> > > >> currentNode and bindNodes
>
> > > > Cool beans!
>
> > > >> Br's,
> > > >> Marius
>
> > > >> On Jan 6, 8:37 pm, "David Pollak"
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >> > On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Marius
> > > >> wrote:
>
> > > >> > > On Jan 6, 7:15 pm, "David Pollak"
> > > >> > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > I also added
> > > >> > > > BindHelpers.attr("tag"): Option[NodeSeq]
> > > >> > > > so you can do something like:
>
> > > >> > > > ...
>
> > > >> > > > 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
> > > >> wrote:
>
> > > >> > > > > Very cool Dave !
>
> > > >> > > > > thx,
> > > >> > > > > Marius
>
> > > >> > > > > On Jan 6, 4:36 pm, "David Pollak"
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > 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.
>
> > > >>
[Lift] Re: accessing the attributes of the XML node associated with a FuncBindParam in bind(...)
Ok, I just committed the updates. Now both BindHelpers.attr and S.attr
implement AttrHelpers trait where we have a bunch of overloaded apply,
I would have liked to use Option[NodeSeq] for S.attr as well but this
would be a breaking change and breaking changes are frozen now. So
S.attr("someparam") still returns a Box[String]. However I added 2
helper function ~ that would return Option[NodeSeq], so you can call
S.attr ~("someparam") and get back an Option[NodeSeq].
I know we could have used implicits to convert from Box[String] to
Option[NodeSeq] but I feel that this would be an abuse of implicits as
the use of implicits IMHO should be motivated byt strong design
rationales and I think this is the case.
Thoughts?
Br's,
Marius
On Jan 7, 7:40 pm, Marius wrote:
> I'll look into it.
>
> On Jan 7, 7:38 pm, "David Pollak"
> wrote:
>
> > Marc,
>
> > Good suggestion. Marius -- do you want to do this... maybe even turn the
> > pattern into a trait that we can apply over and over?
>
> > Thanks,
>
> > David
>
> > On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 9:57 PM, Marc Boschma
> >
>
> > > wrote:
> > > Cool code! Works nicely...
> > > Would it make sense to also add something similar to this from S.attr ?
>
> > > def apply[T](what: String, f: String => T, default: => T): T
> > > = apply(what).map(f) openOr default
>
> > > ie maybe:
>
> > > def apply[T](prefix: String, key: String, f: String => T): Option[T]
> > > = apply(prefix, key).map(f)
> > > def apply[T](key: String, f: String => T): Option[T] = apply(key).map(f)
>
> > > to BindHelpers.attr ?
>
> > > Thinking about it should the applys of the two attr objects be aligned
> > > (Option verses Box, etc) ? It would make the crafting of snippets and bind
> > > functions in terms of access to attributes the same, dropping a potential
> > > barrier to learning lift...
>
> > > ie Maybe BindHelpers.attr should have applys with the following
> > > signatures...
>
> > > def apply(key: String): Box[String]
> > > def apply(prefix: String, key: String): Box[String]
>
> > > def apply(key: String, default: => String): String
> > > def apply(prefix: String, key: String, default: => String): String
>
> > > def apply[T](key: String, f: String => T, default: => T): T
> > > def apply[T](prefix: String, key: String, f: String => T, default: =>
> > > T): T
>
> > > Lastly, and maybe I am missing something here, but I take it for a snippet
> > > a prefixed attribute isn't accessible via S.attr ???
>
> > > Regards,
>
> > > Marc
>
> > > On 07/01/2009, at 6:54 AM, David Pollak wrote:
>
> > > On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Marius wrote:
>
> > >> Ok ... i just committed some changes:
>
> > >> 1. Renamed curAttr to attr
> > >> 2. The BindHelpers vals are now private but we expose two functions
> > >> currentNode and bindNodes
>
> > > Cool beans!
>
> > >> Br's,
> > >> Marius
>
> > >> On Jan 6, 8:37 pm, "David Pollak"
> > >> wrote:
> > >> > On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Marius
> > >> wrote:
>
> > >> > > On Jan 6, 7:15 pm, "David Pollak"
> > >> > > wrote:
> > >> > > > I also added
> > >> > > > BindHelpers.attr("tag"): Option[NodeSeq]
> > >> > > > so you can do something like:
>
> > >> > > > ...
>
> > >> > > > 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
> > >> wrote:
>
> > >> > > > > Very cool Dave !
>
> > >> > > > > thx,
> > >> > > > > Marius
>
> > >> > > > > On Jan 6, 4:36 pm, "David Pollak"
> > >> > > > > 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
> > >> > > > > > <
> > >> marc%2blift...@boschma.cx > <
> > >> > > marc%2blift...@boschma.cx <
> > >> marc%252blift...@boschma.cx >><
> > >> > > > > marc%2blift...@boschma.cx <
> > >> marc%252blift...@boschma.cx > <
>
[Lift] Re: accessing the attributes of the XML node associated with a FuncBindParam in bind(...)
Marc,
Good suggestion. Marius -- do you want to do this... maybe even turn the
pattern into a trait that we can apply over and over?
Thanks,
David
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 9:57 PM, Marc Boschma
> wrote:
> Cool code! Works nicely...
> Would it make sense to also add something similar to this from S.attr ?
>
> def apply[T](what: String, f: String => T, default: => T): T
> = apply(what).map(f) openOr default
>
> ie maybe:
>
> def apply[T](prefix: String, key: String, f: String => T): Option[T]
> = apply(prefix, key).map(f)
> def apply[T](key: String, f: String => T): Option[T] = apply(key).map(f)
>
> to BindHelpers.attr ?
>
> Thinking about it should the applys of the two attr objects be aligned
> (Option verses Box, etc) ? It would make the crafting of snippets and bind
> functions in terms of access to attributes the same, dropping a potential
> barrier to learning lift...
>
> ie Maybe BindHelpers.attr should have applys with the following
> signatures...
>
> def apply(key: String): Box[String]
> def apply(prefix: String, key: String): Box[String]
>
> def apply(key: String, default: => String): String
> def apply(prefix: String, key: String, default: => String): String
>
> def apply[T](key: String, f: String => T, default: => T): T
> def apply[T](prefix: String, key: String, f: String => T, default: =>
> T): T
>
> Lastly, and maybe I am missing something here, but I take it for a snippet
> a prefixed attribute isn't accessible via S.attr ???
>
> Regards,
>
> Marc
>
>
>
> On 07/01/2009, at 6:54 AM, David Pollak wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Marius wrote:
>
>>
>> Ok ... i just committed some changes:
>>
>> 1. Renamed curAttr to attr
>> 2. The BindHelpers vals are now private but we expose two functions
>> currentNode and bindNodes
>
>
> Cool beans!
>
>
>>
>>
>> Br's,
>> Marius
>>
>> On Jan 6, 8:37 pm, "David Pollak"
>> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Marius
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Jan 6, 7:15 pm, "David Pollak"
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > I also added
>> > > > BindHelpers.attr("tag"): Option[NodeSeq]
>> > > > so you can do something like:
>> >
>> > > > ...
>> >
>> > > > 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
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > > > > Very cool Dave !
>> >
>> > > > > thx,
>> > > > > Marius
>> >
>> > > > > On Jan 6, 4:36 pm, "David Pollak"
>> > > > > 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
>> > > > > > <
>> marc%2blift...@boschma.cx > <
>> > > marc%2blift...@boschma.cx <
>> marc%252blift...@boschma.cx >><
>> > > > > marc%2blift...@boschma.cx <
>> marc%252blift...@boschma.cx > <
>> > > marc%252blift...@boschma.cx <
>> marc%25252blift...@boschma.cx >>>
>> >
>> > > > > > > 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 {
>
[Lift] Re: accessing the attributes of the XML node associated with a FuncBindParam in bind(...)
I'll look into it.
On Jan 7, 7:38 pm, "David Pollak"
wrote:
> Marc,
>
> Good suggestion. Marius -- do you want to do this... maybe even turn the
> pattern into a trait that we can apply over and over?
>
> Thanks,
>
> David
>
> On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 9:57 PM, Marc Boschma
>
>
> > wrote:
> > Cool code! Works nicely...
> > Would it make sense to also add something similar to this from S.attr ?
>
> > def apply[T](what: String, f: String => T, default: => T): T
> > = apply(what).map(f) openOr default
>
> > ie maybe:
>
> > def apply[T](prefix: String, key: String, f: String => T): Option[T]
> > = apply(prefix, key).map(f)
> > def apply[T](key: String, f: String => T): Option[T] = apply(key).map(f)
>
> > to BindHelpers.attr ?
>
> > Thinking about it should the applys of the two attr objects be aligned
> > (Option verses Box, etc) ? It would make the crafting of snippets and bind
> > functions in terms of access to attributes the same, dropping a potential
> > barrier to learning lift...
>
> > ie Maybe BindHelpers.attr should have applys with the following
> > signatures...
>
> > def apply(key: String): Box[String]
> > def apply(prefix: String, key: String): Box[String]
>
> > def apply(key: String, default: => String): String
> > def apply(prefix: String, key: String, default: => String): String
>
> > def apply[T](key: String, f: String => T, default: => T): T
> > def apply[T](prefix: String, key: String, f: String => T, default: =>
> > T): T
>
> > Lastly, and maybe I am missing something here, but I take it for a snippet
> > a prefixed attribute isn't accessible via S.attr ???
>
> > Regards,
>
> > Marc
>
> > On 07/01/2009, at 6:54 AM, David Pollak wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Marius wrote:
>
> >> Ok ... i just committed some changes:
>
> >> 1. Renamed curAttr to attr
> >> 2. The BindHelpers vals are now private but we expose two functions
> >> currentNode and bindNodes
>
> > Cool beans!
>
> >> Br's,
> >> Marius
>
> >> On Jan 6, 8:37 pm, "David Pollak"
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Marius
> >> wrote:
>
> >> > > On Jan 6, 7:15 pm, "David Pollak"
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > > > I also added
> >> > > > BindHelpers.attr("tag"): Option[NodeSeq]
> >> > > > so you can do something like:
>
> >> > > > ...
>
> >> > > > 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
> >> wrote:
>
> >> > > > > Very cool Dave !
>
> >> > > > > thx,
> >> > > > > Marius
>
> >> > > > > On Jan 6, 4:36 pm, "David Pollak"
> >> > > > > 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
> >> > > > > > <
> >> marc%2blift...@boschma.cx > <
> >> > > marc%2blift...@boschma.cx <
> >> marc%252blift...@boschma.cx >><
> >> > > > > marc%2blift...@boschma.cx <
> >> marc%252blift...@boschma.cx > <
> >> > > marc%252blift...@boschma.cx <
> >> marc%25252blift...@boschma.cx >>>
>
> >> > > > > > > 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
[Lift] Re: accessing the attributes of the XML node associated with a FuncBindParam in bind(...)
Cool code! Works nicely...
Would it make sense to also add something similar to this from S.attr ?
def apply[T](what: String, f: String => T, default: => T): T =
apply(what).map(f) openOr default
ie maybe:
def apply[T](prefix: String, key: String, f: String => T):
Option[T] = apply(prefix, key).map(f)
def apply[T](key: String, f: String => T): Option[T] =
apply(key).map(f)
to BindHelpers.attr ?
Thinking about it should the applys of the two attr objects be aligned
(Option verses Box, etc) ? It would make the crafting of snippets and
bind functions in terms of access to attributes the same, dropping a
potential barrier to learning lift...
ie Maybe BindHelpers.attr should have applys with the following
signatures...
def apply(key: String): Box[String]
def apply(prefix: String, key: String): Box[String]
def apply(key: String, default: => String): String
def apply(prefix: String, key: String, default: => String): String
def apply[T](key: String, f: String => T, default: => T): T
def apply[T](prefix: String, key: String, f: String => T,
default: => T): T
Lastly, and maybe I am missing something here, but I take it for a
snippet a prefixed attribute isn't accessible via S.attr ???
Regards,
Marc
On 07/01/2009, at 6:54 AM, David Pollak wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Marius
> wrote:
>
> Ok ... i just committed some changes:
>
> 1. Renamed curAttr to attr
> 2. The BindHelpers vals are now private but we expose two functions
> currentNode and bindNodes
>
> Cool beans!
>
>
>
> Br's,
> Marius
>
> On Jan 6, 8:37 pm, "David Pollak"
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Marius
> wrote:
> >
> > > On Jan 6, 7:15 pm, "David Pollak"
> > > wrote:
> > > > I also added
> > > > BindHelpers.attr("tag"): Option[NodeSeq]
> > > > so you can do something like:
> >
> > > > ...
> >
> > > > 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
> wrote:
> >
> > > > > Very cool Dave !
> >
> > > > > thx,
> > > > > Marius
> >
> > > > > On Jan 6, 4:36 pm, "David Pollak"
>
> > > > > 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
> > > > > > <
> > > marc%2blift...@boschma.cx ><
> > > > > marc%2blift...@boschma.cx <
> > > marc%252blift...@boschma.cx >>
> >
> > > > > > > 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
[Lift] Re: accessing the attributes of the XML node associated with a FuncBindParam in bind(...)
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Marius wrote:
>
> Ok ... i just committed some changes:
>
> 1. Renamed curAttr to attr
> 2. The BindHelpers vals are now private but we expose two functions
> currentNode and bindNodes
Cool beans!
>
>
> Br's,
> Marius
>
> On Jan 6, 8:37 pm, "David Pollak"
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Marius wrote:
> >
> > > On Jan 6, 7:15 pm, "David Pollak"
> > > wrote:
> > > > I also added
> > > > BindHelpers.attr("tag"): Option[NodeSeq]
> > > > so you can do something like:
> >
> > > > ...
> >
> > > > 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
> wrote:
> >
> > > > > Very cool Dave !
> >
> > > > > thx,
> > > > > Marius
> >
> > > > > On Jan 6, 4:36 pm, "David Pollak"
> > > > > 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
> > > > > > <
> marc%2blift...@boschma.cx > <
> > > marc%2blift...@boschma.cx <
> marc%252blift...@boschma.cx >><
> > > > > marc%2blift...@boschma.cx <
> marc%252blift...@boschma.cx > <
> > > marc%252blift...@boschma.cx <
> marc%25252blift...@boschma.cx >>>
> >
> > > > > > > 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
> > > > > > > >>
> >
> > > <
> marc%252blift...@boschma.cx >>
> > > > > <
> marc%252blift...@boschma.cx > <
> > > marc%252blift...@boschma.cx <
> marc%25252blift...@boschma.cx
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >>> A quick just be
[Lift] Re: accessing the attributes of the XML node associated with a FuncBindParam in bind(...)
Ok ... i just committed some changes:
1. Renamed curAttr to attr
2. The BindHelpers vals are now private but we expose two functions
currentNode and bindNodes
Br's,
Marius
On Jan 6, 8:37 pm, "David Pollak"
wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Marius wrote:
>
> > On Jan 6, 7:15 pm, "David Pollak"
> > wrote:
> > > I also added
> > > BindHelpers.attr("tag"): Option[NodeSeq]
> > > so you can do something like:
>
> > > ...
>
> > > 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 wrote:
>
> > > > Very cool Dave !
>
> > > > thx,
> > > > Marius
>
> > > > On Jan 6, 4:36 pm, "David Pollak"
> > > > 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
> > > > > <
> > marc%2blift...@boschma.cx ><
> > > > marc%2blift...@boschma.cx <
> > marc%252blift...@boschma.cx >>
>
> > > > > > 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
> > > > > > >>
> > >
> > > > <
> > marc%252blift...@boschma.cx >>>
> > > > > > 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
>
> > > >
[Lift] Re: accessing the attributes of the XML node associated with a FuncBindParam in bind(...)
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Marius wrote:
>
>
>
> On Jan 6, 7:15 pm, "David Pollak"
> wrote:
> > I also added
> > BindHelpers.attr("tag"): Option[NodeSeq]
> > so you can do something like:
> >
> > ...
> >
> > 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 wrote:
> >
> > > Very cool Dave !
> >
> > > thx,
> > > Marius
> >
> > > On Jan 6, 4:36 pm, "David Pollak"
> > > 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
> > > > <
> marc%2blift...@boschma.cx ><
> > > marc%2blift...@boschma.cx <
> marc%252blift...@boschma.cx >>
> >
> > > > > 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
> > > > > >>
> >
> > > <
> marc%252blift...@boschma.cx >>>
> > > > > 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
> > > > > >>
[Lift] Re: accessing the attributes of the XML node associated with a FuncBindParam in bind(...)
On Jan 6, 7:15 pm, "David Pollak"
wrote:
> I also added
> BindHelpers.attr("tag"): Option[NodeSeq]
> so you can do something like:
>
> ...
>
> 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 ?
>
> Thanks,
>
> David
>
> On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 9:13 AM, Marius wrote:
>
> > Very cool Dave !
>
> > thx,
> > Marius
>
> > On Jan 6, 4:36 pm, "David Pollak"
> > 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
> > > <
> > marc%2blift...@boschma.cx >
>
> > > > 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
> > > > >>
> > >>
> > > > 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
>
> > > > The node parameter to the anonymous function will be the
> > > > 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
> > > > cau
[Lift] Re: accessing the attributes of the XML node associated with a FuncBindParam in bind(...)
I also added
BindHelpers.attr("tag"): Option[NodeSeq]
so you can do something like:
...
and:
BindHelpers.attr("prefix", "tag")
Thanks,
David
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 9:13 AM, Marius wrote:
>
> Very cool Dave !
>
> thx,
> Marius
>
> On Jan 6, 4:36 pm, "David Pollak"
> 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
> > <
> marc%2blift...@boschma.cx >
> >
> >
> >
> > > 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
> > > >>
> >>
> > > 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
> >
> > > The node parameter to the anonymous function will be the
> > > 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
[Lift] Re: accessing the attributes of the XML node associated with a FuncBindParam in bind(...)
Very cool Dave !
thx,
Marius
On Jan 6, 4:36 pm, "David Pollak"
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
>
>
>
>
> > 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
> > >> >
> > 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
>
> > The node parameter to the anonymous function will be the
> > 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 wrote:
> > > A nice alternative would have been :
>
> > > bind("todo", html,
> > >
[Lift] Re: accessing the attributes of the XML node associated with a FuncBindParam in bind(...)
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
> 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
> >> >
> 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
> >>>
> The node parameter to the anonymous function will be the
> 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 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
[Lift] Re: accessing the attributes of the XML node associated with a FuncBindParam in bind(...)
On Jan 6, 2:50 pm, Marc Boschma 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(...)
bind(..) is used a lot but I don't think that many people uses bind
with FuncBindParam though. And I don't think this would be a major
breaking change.
>
> 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...
It would but personally I prefer the initial proposal of providing the
full node and not just its childs. With this we don't need to add any
more code.
>
> -
>
> 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...
Sorry man, I like the initial proposal better as with minimal changes
we achieve quite a lot and no need for new code. However this is just
my preference, maybe DPP and others would like your proposal best so
it will be materializes in git master. But I still vote for simplicity
even if this imply a breaking change but IMHO this is a very minor
breaking change (unless I'm missing something here).
>
> 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 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
>
> The node parameter to the anonymous function will be the
> 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 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.
> >>>
[Lift] Re: accessing the attributes of the XML node associated with a FuncBindParam in bind(...)
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 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
>>>
The node parameter to the anonymous function will be the
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 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
>>>
>
>>>
> but you can do it like:
>>>
>
>>>
> 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 node I thought it would be good if the
>> XHTML
>> designer could pass in some guidance to the doList(...) method
>> used in
>> bind(..). ie. ...
>>>
>> 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
[Lift] Re: accessing the attributes of the XML node associated with a FuncBindParam in bind(...)
(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 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
>>
>>> The node parameter to the anonymous function will be the
>>> 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 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
>>
>>
but you can do it like:
>>
>>
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 node I thought it would be good if the XHTML
> designer could pass in some guidance to the doList(...) method
> used in
> bind(..). ie. ...
>>
> 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:
[Lift] Re: accessing the attributes of the XML node associated with a FuncBindParam in bind(...)
On Jan 6, 12:47 pm, Marc Boschma 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
>
> > The node parameter to the anonymous function will be the
> > 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 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
>
> >>
>
> >> but you can do it like:
>
> >>
>
> >> 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 node I thought it would be good if the XHTML
> >>> designer could pass in some guidance to the doList(...) method
> >>> used in
> >>> bind(..). ie. ...
>
> >>> 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
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Lif
[Lift] Re: accessing the attributes of the XML node associated with a FuncBindParam in bind(...)
A quick just before going to bed reaction is that your change would
solve the issue.
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...
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
>
> The node parameter to the anonymous function will be the
> 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 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
>>
>>
>>
>> but you can do it like:
>>
>>
>>
>> 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 node I thought it would be good if the XHTML
>>> designer could pass in some guidance to the doList(...) method
>>> used in
>>> bind(..). ie. ...
>>
>>> 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
> >
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Lift" group.
To post to this group, send email to liftweb@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
liftweb+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Lift] Re: accessing the attributes of the XML node associated with a FuncBindParam in bind(...)
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
The node parameter to the anonymous function will be the
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 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
>
>
>
> but you can do it like:
>
>
>
> 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 node I thought it would be good if the XHTML
> > designer could pass in some guidance to the doList(...) method used in
> > bind(..). ie. ...
>
> > 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
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Lift" group.
To post to this group, send email to liftweb@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
liftweb+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[Lift] Re: accessing the attributes of the XML node associated with a FuncBindParam in bind(...)
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
but you can do it like:
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 node I thought it would be good if the XHTML
> designer could pass in some guidance to the doList(...) method used in
> bind(..). ie. ...
>
> 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
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Lift" group.
To post to this group, send email to liftweb@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
liftweb+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
