On Sat, 2003-11-22 at 09:32, Danny Bols wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Bruno Dumon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: vrijdag 21 november 2003 21:33 > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: Woody Transformer: absolute addressing of widgets > > > > > > On Fri, 2003-11-21 at 19:38, Danny Bols wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Bruno Dumon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Sent: vrijdag 21 november 2003 16:47 > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Subject: Re: Woody Transformer: absolute addressing of widgets > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 2003-11-19 at 08:36, Danny Bols wrote: > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > > > is it possible in the Woody transformer to use absolute > > addressing for > > > > > widgets in a repeater like: > > > > > <wt:widget id="repeater.row.name"/> > > > > > or for nested situations: > > > > > <wt:widget id="repeater1.row1.repeater2.row2.widgetname"/> > > > > > > > > This won't be very helpful, but: no. > > > It is very helpfull in the case you want > > > > The "not very helpful" remark was about my answer ;-) > > > > > to use a multiple templates based > > > on the same form instance. For testing purposes we made a > > little change to > > > the getWidget method in the woody transformer (see > > attachement). It allows > > > us to make a template which zooms in on one particular row of a repeater > > > based on the same form instance. > > > > I think it is useful (though also somewhat dependent on the subject of > > our other thread). The only thing left that might need some discussion > > is the precise syntax we'll use for this. I'm mostly wondering if it > > will also be useful to go back in the widget tree, i.e. something like > > ../.. in xpath notation. Here I also see some relationship with how we > > would address widgets in the expression language, which we'll likely > > switch to JXPath, so using slashes instead of dots to separate widgets > > might be meaningful. > > I agree, relative addressing beside absolute addressing would also be nice. > I don't like the use of slashes e.g. we now pass the getFullyQualifiedId() > of a widget as a request parameter. I we should agree on using slashes the > getFullyQualifiedId() would also have to return a slashed-address and using > it in request parameter value is asking for trouble. > WDYT?
I see no problem in using dots in one place and slashes in the other, since it are two entirely different and unrelated worlds (HTTP protocol versus programmer API). -- 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]
