Hi Robin, actually you can already do what you've requested, take a look here for a project that mimics your approach, the StandardTextField is actually a compound so you receive (and need to prepopulate it) a dict but I have a small patch ready to commit (4 lines of code) that with 0.9a5 will let you do exactly what you've requested.
http://trac.turbogears.org/turbogears/attachment/wiki/SimpleWidgetForm/WeAreFlexible.tar.gz?format=raw Actually apart from the StandardTextField things are even easier than in your dreams (if I can interpret your request in this way), also keep in mind that you should not instantiate widget inside templates (as in your example) but reuse the same instance across all requests since widgets are stateless. Now I should really sleep, tomorrow I will commit the patch I mentioned and update the package. Ciao Michele Robin Haswell wrote: > Michele Cella wrote: > > Can you explain yourself a little better? I'm really trying to > > understand what you're saying but it seems you're too vague and a > > victim of some preconceptions on this subject, sorry but if I sound > > emotional but I've spent (along with Alberto and others) a lot of my > > time (not spare) on TG widgets and hearing these things is quite > > disappointing for me. > > > > Ciao > > Michele > > I think the main problem with widgets is that no-one knows how to use them. > But for me, a big > problem is that I don't actually want to use a Pythonic interface to make a > form, because after 2 > years of working as a web developer I've written too many forms to know that > widgets just isn't > going to work. It's fine for maybe 20% of cases where the forms are pretty > bog standard, but when I > want to do something a bit different suddenly I have to write my own template > AND some pythonic > cruft using a specific API (which isn't available) and that just makes me sad. > > I think you should concentrate on what people actually don't like: > > Writing forms with HTML is nearly always necessary. And I actually feel good > after making a good UI > out of forms. So writing HTML forms is not really something to be avoided. > Sure if you have a 100% > standard form, widgets is quite good, but that happens so rarely that it just > ends up working > against you. > > For me, the perfect solution would be something like this. Feel free to ask > me for any > clarifications. And this is all from memory (guess why) so some names might > be a little off: > > # > # schemas.py > # > # I have to write a schema for every form. That's okay. > # > > from validators import * > > class ProductSchema(Schema): > title = NotEmpty() > description = NotEmpty() > price = Float() # guess > > # > # mywidgets.py: > # > # This is some templates for how I like my widgets. I write this when I think > I'll have > # more than one of a certain form firld > # > > from widgets import * > > class StandardTextField(Textfield): > template = """ > <p> > <label for="${field_id}">${field_label}</label> > <input type="text" name="${field_nane}" id="${field_id}" > value="${field_value}"/> > <strong py:if="field_error">${field_error}</strong> > </p>""" > > # > # Okay leg work done, now let's do something > # > # templates/myform.kid > # > > <?python from mywidgets import * ?> > > <form action="saveproduct" method="post"> > <fieldset> > <legend>New Product</legend> > <div py:content="StandardTextField(name='title', label='Product title')"/> > <div py:content="StandardTextField(name='description', label='Short > description')"/> > <!-- oh noes! A non-standard field! --> > <p> > <label for="price">Price</label> > £ <input type="text" name="price" id="price" > value="value_for('price')"/> > <strong py:if="error_for('price')" > py:content="error_for('price')"></strong> > <input type="checkbox" name="incvat" checked="value_for('incvat')"/> > This price includes VAT > </p> > </fieldset> > <div py:content="StandardButtonRow(hiddenid='product.id')"/> <!-- I should > have defined this in > schemas.py. It's a <p> with class submit, a hidden field named "id" and two > submits - Save and > Cancel --> > </form> > > # > # controllers.py > # > > import schemas > > class Root(controllers.Root): > @expose(html=".templates.myform) > def newproduct(self): > return {"id":0} > @expose(html=".templates.myform) > def editproduct(self, id): > return {"id":id} > > @expose(html=".templates.thanks") > @validate(form=schemas.ProductSchema) > @error_handler(editproduct) > def saveproduct: > # whatever > return {"message":"Thanks"} > > > #### done > > The point is, it would be much much better if we could define our custom > stuff inline within Kid, > and not in some collection of widgets. Overriding some template of the > closest matching template and > then calling it *only once* just doesn't make my life better. I do appreciate > the Pythonic interface > as widgets are at the moment - it does speed up development, but when you > want to do something a > little different it's a bit of a trainwreck. > > Sorry :-/ You've done very well to get this far, to be honest. > > -Rob --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TurboGears" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/turbogears -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
