Using form type="mutli" will append _o_row# to the field name couple that with either auto-field-service or auto-field-entity and I believe you will get the results or differentiation you're looking for.
--- Jonathon -- Improov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Chris, > > In my example, VehicleA to C are all the same type of entities, but > different records. > > Using auto-fields-entity wouldn't give me the "differentiated field > names" I need, would it? > > Jonathon > > Chris Howe wrote: > > Look at the examples for auto-fields-entity and auto-fields-service > > > > --- Jonathon -- Improov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> My biggest problem with Widget Forms is that I'm unable to reuse > >> certain chunks of UIs. > >> > >> Example here. > >> > >> Say I have one big form with 3 sets of similar fields. Say the > sets > >> are named VehicleA, VehicleB > >> and VehicleC. Each set has fields Manufacturer, Model, Year, and > so > >> on. In Widget Forms, I need to > >> manually key in field names VehicleA_Manufacturer, VehicleB_Year, > >> etc. In Freemarker macros, well, > >> I'm sure you get the picture. > >> > >> Or am I missing something in Widget Forms? > >> > >> Another big stumbling block is the inability to put blocks of UIs > >> under a conditional, like > >> <condition> in Widget Screens. > >> > >> Any help, before I dive headlong into Freemarker macros? > >> > >> Frankly, I just wanted a quick and dirty and cheap way to do > things > >> in UI. At first, I thought it > >> was Widget Forms. But after some time, Widget Forms' simplicity > kinda > >> got in the way and made it > >> difficult rather than simple. Layouts are imprecise and cannot be > >> arranged to flow correctly. > >> Fields cannot be neatly grouped together without breaking layout. > And > >> the list goes on. > >> > >> Things were fine when I only had to do small forms that dealt with > >> only a single (or at most a > >> few) type of record. And then, clients and end-users started > asking > >> for user-friendly forms that > >> flowed with their workflow, not with the data structure. > >> > >> And of course, with Ajax thrown in, all hell broke loose. > >> > >> Jonathon > >> > >> David E Jones wrote: > >>> In general the issue is: what is(are) the problem(s) this is > meant > >> to > >>> solve? > >>> > >>> Here are some comments on the stuff I saw in the opentaps mailing > >> list > >>> discussion about this: > >>> > >>> Extending the form widget is really pretty easy, and most of the > >> time > >>> really pretty unnecessary as long as someone on the team really > >> knows > >>> how to use it and CSS well. > >>> > >>> So IMO for OFBiz this sort of practice would not be of much > value. > >> Their > >>> macro library will likely become bloated and difficult to > organize > >> and > >>> structure, and therefore difficult to use, and with what was > >> described > >>> it doesn't look like they are getting a lot of code savings over > >>> straight up FTL templates, but they ARE sacrificing some ease in > >>> customization and making it much more difficult to reskin for > >> custom > >>> sites. So no, I don't think we'd want to do anything like this in > >> OFBiz. > >>> Of course, that's just my first glance opinion based on previous > >>> experience, mostly with JSP tag libs and other such things. > Without > >>> really trying it out and finding out what sorts of problems the > >> form > >>> widgets is not helping with, I couldn't say for sure. > >>> > >>> -David > >>> > >>> > >>> Jonathon -- Improov wrote: > >>>> What's the main reason against that approach? > >>>> > >>>> I think using Freemarker macros can allow for more reusable > chunks > >> of > >>>> UIs than Widget Forms can. And of course, using Freemarker means > >> you > >>>> can make your UIs as pretty or plain as you want, HTML/CSS > limits > >> are > >>>> the limits here. > >>>> > >>>> One problem with this approach I can see: I'm missing the > >> convenient > >>>> <entity-options>. > >>>> > >>>> Jonathon > >>>> > >>>> David E Jones wrote: > >>>>> I think the opentaps guys (Si Chen, Leon Torres, Chris Libery, > >> etc) > >>>>> have worked on something along these lines. > >>>>> > >>>>> I'm not a huge fan of this approach (ie a generic library of > >> macros > >>>>> as a form widget replacement or to use in ecommerce > >> applications), > >>>>> but they have been working on it and I imagine have at least > had > >> some > >>>>> success with it. > >>>>> > >>>>> -David > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Jonathon -- Improov wrote: > >>>>>> Hi to all of you out there having fun with freemarker macros! > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Just to confirm, freemarker macros cannot be nested? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Has anybody built any base suite of macros that can do most of > >> what > >>>>>> Widget Forms can do? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Jonathon > >>>>> > >>> > >> > > > > > >
