I took the advice of someone on IRC and did a slightly messy work around as oppose to trying to alter the internals of cforms.
My solution involves a flowscript function that extracts the request names and values and puts the parameters into an ArrayList (think "input_source0=1", "input_source1=0", "input_source2=1"). A jx transformation then checks on each row of the repeater for each radio button whether an <input type="radio" checked="checked"/> box should be output or just a <input type="radio"/> tag. At this point it feels like a lot of work for the sake of design. :) Just to illustrate what I was trying to achieve (and for any who search through the mailing lists wondering why there is no mention of this problem). Assume that the X is a radio button (that specifies that the user intends to use the value of corresponding field) and [___] is an input field <repeater-row> X FieldWidgetLabel1 [___FIELD1___] X FieldWidgetLabel2 [___FIELD2___] X FieldWidgetLabel3 [___FIELD3___] </repeater-row> If there wasn't a repeater involved this would be rather simple to get working (there is more to this interface then I can explain here). For certain reasons the following arrangement wouldn't do <repeater-row> X fieldWidgetLabel1 X fieldWidgetLabel2 X fieldWidgetLabel3 [___FIELD1___] [___FIELD2___] [___FIELD3___] </repeater-row> Anyway. There may be a way, but, I'm fairly convinced that CFORMS can't currently pull this off without the messy code that I've got going. If anyone comes across the same need and is stumped feel free to email me. I can try to better explain the rather clumsy work around that I have going. Mike On Sat, 2006-28-01 at 00:27 +0100, Joerg Heinicke wrote: > On 16.01.2006 02:55, mike rowse wrote: > > > I have been searching through the resources for an answer to this > > question for some time now. > > > > I would like to be able to create a cform with this structure > > > > ()radio Button : <ft:widget-label id="one"/> : <ft:widget id="one"/> > > ()radio Button : <ft:widget-label id="two"/> : <ft:widget id="two"/> > > ()radio Button : <ft:widget-label id="three"/> : <ft:widget id="three"/> > > > > I hope that makes sense. > > Unfortunately not really. That's why you probably got no answer up to now. > > > So. I'm wondering if anyone has encountered this situation before. It > > seems that this structure of form is fairly common place and I'm > > surprised that I haven't found a good work around. I have considered > > playing with the basic widget styling XSL, but, I'm hoping that someone > > on the list has a better suggestion because hacking the XSL seems to be > > a rather nasty solution to this problem (although if it is the simplest > > way I will do it). Perhaps I'm missing a conception building block and > > the solution is very easy. :) > > So I don't know what's your problem and if playing around with the XSL > is to recommend. But in general for any styling different to the default > one you should create your own stylesheets and import the default ones. > You only need to add templates to your XSL for the elements you want to > handle differently (in comparison to the default handling). > > Jörg > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
