guess it is a matter of interpretation. I thought the discussion was that yes ftls are better. I did not see anything about including widget in FTL. guess I missed that.
Jonathon -- Improov sent the following on 12/3/2007 5:36 PM: > Actually, this isn't going backwards. It's going forward. > > Some screens are best done in ftl. This was discussed countless times > before. > > In getting ftl screens to use field widgets, we reuse more of OFBiz's > widgets in more places. This will bring us closer to using more of widgets. > > Jonathon > > BJ Freeman wrote: >> seems your going backwards. >> remove the ftl and use screen widgets that include formwidgets. >> add a class (style) and use the css for aligning tables. >> >> Jonathon -- Improov sent the following on 12/2/2007 8:48 PM: >>> The problem I'm facing now is that form widgets always have the start >>> and end wrappers (<table cellspacing...> and </table). It is not >>> possible to mix fields from one form into another form done in ftl. >>> >>> Attributes skip-start and skip-end only remove the <form> wrapper. >>> >>> Getting form widgets to say skip-table could solve this problem, though >>> it's not intuitive to use form widgets as field widgets. Better to use >>> field widgets in screen widgets instead. However, this approach could be >>> a quick interim fix. >>> >>> Another problem is the colspan for <td>. Maybe we can make that >>> variable. >>> >>> Field widgets like <drop-down> are fantastic. It's a pity we can't use >>> them inside of creative displays written in ftl. >>> >>> Si Chen did some FreeMarker macros for these, I believe. But if we're >>> gonna strongly advocate widget usage, I think we need to fill that void >>> in screen widgets. Going the FreeMarker macros route would basically >>> rewrite much of what is already provided by field widgets. >>> >>> Maybe have a generic "group of fields" widget via <fields>? >>> >>> Jonathon >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > > >
