On Sat, 2003-11-22 at 08:41, Danny Bols wrote: > > From: Bruno Dumon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: vrijdag 21 november 2003 21:10 > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: Woody - Determining the value for a widget > > > > > > On Fri, 2003-11-21 at 20:29, Danny Bols wrote: > > > > From: Bruno Dumon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > <snipped use cases I resonate with/> > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > It's more complicated then this. While this may work for the default > > > > renditions of the field widget (though I'm not sure the HTML spec > > > > requires empty fields to be submitted), it is for example > > impossible to > > > > do this for checkboxes. As suggested on the -dev ML a while ago, this > > > > could be solved by adding hidden id + ".present" fields to the form > > > > (though I don't like that very much from the HTTP-interface > > > > perspective). > > > > > > > > This would also allow to detect if a composite widget is not present, > > > > i.e. if a repeater is not present at all, none of its child widgets > > > > would need to be further processed. > > > > > > > > Anyway, I'm -1 for any solution that would only work for certain types > > > > of widgets. > > > > > > I agree with you. But the clue is NOT to use hidden fields! Why > > should we do > > > that? Since we have woody there is a form object which stores and cares > > > about al the form data. Just put only those fields in the template which > > > have to be editable during that particular step of the process. This is > > > about using the strengths of a FORM instance an not having to > > rely on a HTML > > > spec which was not really designed for this kind of interaction. > > > The basic principle is: ONE form object MULTIPLE templates/views. > > > > ok, got that. But how can we know, upon form submit, if a certain field > > was included in the request or not? This would indeed be possible if we > > knew what template was used in the publication pipeline. The template > > itself could however also be dynamic (i.e. generated by a JXTemplate). > > I agree...we don't know which fields should be inculded in the request. But > does woody know this at this moment? I don't think so, woody acts as if all > the widgets should be availble by overwriting them with null values if they > aren't available. So IMHO the current version of woody doesn't have a > solution for this either
As said before in this thread, Woody doesn't support this indeed, otherwise this thread wouldn't be here in the first place :-) > Making a solid solution for this is very complicated: how would woody > possibly know which fields should be available on the request? And what do > we get for it in return? .... still no guarantee on the values of the fields > on the request. I think we should be very pragmatical and not overcomplicate > processing and lose flexibility. But what's your solution then? It is not because there's no request parameter, that there's no widget. OK, this might be true for a field widget rendered as an <input> box, but it's not the case for checkboxes (unchecked checkboxes do not give a request parameter). All I'm asking for is a solution that will work for all types of widgets. If it's only the checkbox which has this problem then maybe we could only use the ".present" trick for widgets that can be rendered as checkboxes. > > > > Another solution Torsten Curdt came up with is that the > > WoodyTemplateTransformer could collect the id's of all widgets that it > > effectively put on the form, and attach this information to the > > flowscript continuation object. What I don't like about this (otherwise > > very smart) approach is that it is very thightly bound to the > > continuations concept. > > And what if my xslt skips certain fields based on their styling attributes? That would not be allowed. The role of the XSLT is to style widgets, not to remove them. -- Bruno Dumon http://outerthought.org/ Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
