On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 6:42 AM, Ralph Rauscher < [email protected]> wrote:
> Hi, > > I have a case where I have a really large form that would require several > sessions to be valid and I'd like to allow users to persist their work (even > if the form is invalid) and continue working on it later. > > As the cforms binding will throw all kinds of exceptions in this case I > thought about serializing the Form object using standard Java object > serialization. > > So far Form and the classes it's derived from do not implement > Serializable, which would be easy to fix. I saw a remark though by Sylvain > where he mentions > > /"a form contains its own data model, which can be serialized, but also > pointers to its definition, which is shared between form instances and can > contain arbitrary references to non-serializable objects and components" Just a little thinking to share when I studied cform before. I think that it is a bad design to have cform having a reference to its definition. Once a cform instance is instantiated, it should get rid of its definition and is allowed to modify its structure for more flexible manipulation. > > > /So, is it possible? > > Thanks. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
