I would suggest sticking with erPrototype key for consistency, since that's
already in use and takes the word "component" out. Guessing key names is no
fun, especially when they are rarely used and aren't well documented.
On May 5, 2012, at 11:12 AM, Mark Wardle wrote:
> I may have misinterpre
Yeah something more generic in the model would be less confusing.
'Small' combined with the task and prototype would give all you need to set
default components. Thanks very much for your input, Mark.
Sent from my iPad
On 2012-05-05, at 11:12 AM, Mark Wardle wrote:
> I may have misinterpreted
I may have misinterpreted the intention?
I was concerned with this rule:
smartAttribute.userInfo.d2wComponentType = displaySmallIntNumber =>
componentName = "ERD2WDisplaySmallInteger"
Which implies setting a component name in the model?
Apologies if I'm misinterpreting this.
--
Dr. Mark W
I wouldn't put component names in the model. I hope no one thought I suggested
it :-)
I think specifying what value the attribute holds when the actual attribute
value is very broad (password vs regular string) is perfectly acceptable though.
Ramsey
On May 4, 2012, at 10:28 PM, Mark Wardle wr
Isn't there a difference between including additional information about a value
(eg isLarge as in Anjo Krank's example) and putting in a pseudo-component
name?
The former clearly belongs in the model, the latter in the view.
I'd tend to use the user info as hints to refine the description of
I agree. Anything that will allow a new developer to have a better out of the
box experience would be great.
--
Paul Yu
Sent with Sparrow (http://www.sparrowmailapp.com/?sig)
On Thursday, May 3, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Chuck Hill wrote:
> I am not a real D2W guy, but that seems like an obviously g
Been using this for years, eg:
> 35 : ((entity.userInfo.isLarge != 'YES' and not (entity.name like
> '*Statistic')) => showResultsImmediately = true [BooleanAssignment]
Cheers, Anjo
Am 03.05.2012 um 19:33 schrieb David Holt:
> Hi all,
>
> A few of us have been discussing creating an additio
Another idea that just came to me is that you could swap components in and out
wholesale too.
By changing a property to include/exclude a rule model you could change from a
normal component set to an AJAX component set, for example.
On 2012-05-03, at 10:36 AM, Chuck Hill wrote:
> I am not a r
I am not a real D2W guy, but that seems like an obviously good idea to me.
Chuck
On 2012-05-03, at 10:33 AM, David Holt wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> A few of us have been discussing creating an additional default rule set for
> Modern D2W applications based on a new optional key in the user info
>
Hi all,
A few of us have been discussing creating an additional default rule set for
Modern D2W applications based on a new optional key in the user info dictionary
and the existing prototypeName for an attribute.
We were thinking of using a new key such as d2wComponentType = mailto as a new
k
10 matches
Mail list logo
