If one wants to create a more dynamic user interface based on one single woody form in which we give the user more control over the interaction it would IMHO be bad design to put all the inivisble widgets on the request and waste valuable processing time.
Here are a few cases in which more dynamic user interfaces based on one woody form are needed: - switching between a "simple" and an "advanced" mode - in case of a repeater switching between a "single row" and "multiple row" mode - a wizard-based interaction in which the user is guided step-by-step through the different parts of a form We are using this kind of interaction by using different templates on the same form which are tied together in flow script. See also my comments below. > -----Original Message----- > From: news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Sylvain Wallez > Sent: donderdag 20 november 2003 10:04 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Woody - Determining the value for a widget > > > Danny Bols wrote: > > >Hello, > > > >it seems that if a field widget doesn't have a corresponding > value in the request it's original value gets overidden with the > null-value. > > > >Is this the way it should work or is it a slip of the pen in the > Field.readFromRequest(formContext) method? > > > > > > The question is whether we should consider a missing request parameter > (value == null) the same as an empty value (value = ""). Currently, > they're considered to be equivalent and the field is therefore nullified. You are right, there is a big difference between a parameter which is not available on the request and a parameter which has an empty value. So a +1 for processing them differently and for not overriding widgets with unwanted null values. > > Now this is debatable, furthermore considering that I envisioned to > distinguish these two cases to raise an exception when a null-valued > required field is not present on the request (see > http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24180). The case discussed in here is about giving a form-designer a test tool for static (=simple?) forms (template wt: is equal to design wd:). I hope we will not block the way for more dynamic templates / interaction. What do you think? -- Danny --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
