On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Felix Gilcher <[email protected]> wrote: > Well, that still is a fixed set of functionality that is dependent on > the stage. So you're afraid that adding stages will be difficult > because now you only need to add a template and some config. But > because you're afraid that adding stages might be difficult in the > future you have to add complicated code now. In my experience that > rarely pays of. There are certainly situations where it does, so > that's your call.
I think I agree that it might not pay off, especially if it was very tricky to do, but I think as a rule I like to keep in mind how to generalise / make something "more dynamic" later. I think an action per stage immediatly creates a stumbling block on how to generalise: say if this were to be extended to a be a CMS where a user constructed the wizard in a GUI. > There is no way of providing a dependency depending of the value of > the incoming value, a dependency is provided if the validator returns > "true". So there's some hacks that you can use - you could have > multiple validators, one for each value. You'd have to set the > severity to "info" so that the field is not marked as "failed". That > way each validator provides a unique dependency that you can depend > on. It's a bit hacky but it should work. That's actually less hacky than the way I've done it (and I deliberatly don't mention the way I've done it...). I didn't know you can set severity to "info" so it doesn't fail: that's very useful. Thanks! Michal. _______________________________________________ users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.agavi.org/mailman/listinfo/users
