> From: Timothy Larson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: vrijdag 21 november 2003 21:38 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Woody - Determining the value for a widget > > > --- Bruno Dumon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Fri, 2003-11-21 at 21:01, Timothy Larson wrote: > > > So far, I lean toward using an *optional* set of explicit views. > > > > But with explicit views, you would still need to know what view was used > > when a form is submitted, so the name of the view would then be embedded > > in the form itself? > > True, but it is less hidden data to pass back and forth across the network > or to store in the continuation. By the way, what if this data > (either the > view name or the list of widgets sent) could be stored in a hidden field > or in the continuation? The decision could be made per form based on how > much secure enforcement is needed (store in continuation) versus how much > we offload from the server to the client (store in a hidden field). > > > A problem I see with explicit views is that they need to be static > > (IIUC). I think a common use case will be that the template file is > > processed by the JXTemplate generator and that some widgets will be > > included conditionally. > > In some cases the view could be dynamically "static" using static > expression of dynamic union semantics. In this case the stored > data (either in the continuation or a hidden field) would be the > view name plus some parameters.
uuumm...I guess I miss the point...what do you mean with..."static expression of dynamic union semantics" -- Danny --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
