The good news: It is not an error in the implementation, but in your form definition. But it's still a "not so intuitive" implementation then.
Thanks so much for this! With your alterations it works like a charm.
The solution (hoping that Tim also reads it): The implicite cases are really hard to understand, especially as there is fb:case and ft:case, but no fd:case. The fd:struct I use also has effect on the template and binding (I have to add them there too to get the same tree) and complicates them unnecessarily. Why don't we simply introduce explicite fd:case - until we have masks ;-)
WDYT?
If we had fd:case, wouldn't that imply that we'd have to duplicate widget declarations when the same widget appears in more than one case?
To Vilya: That's a very nice sample of using union. As I was searching for a simpler sample than the Form Model GUI do you want to provide it to the project? Maybe with the "real" functionality of editing a row as for the moment one can only cancel the editing. Would be really cool - and I have less work to do ;-)
Sure thing, I'm happy to contribute it. I don't quite have the editing part working yet, but will submit it as soon as I do. How do I go about submitting it?
BTW I also have an extension of the repeater widget which handles pagination, that I'd like to submit.
Cheers,
Vil.
--
__
o| _. / \|o._ _ _ ._ _ ._ _ _|_
\/ ||\/(_|| (|/||| |(/_(_)| |(/_o| |(/_ |_
/ \__
http://website.lineone.net/~vilya--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
