As fare as I can tell the problems arise from SQLFORM. Nothing prevents us from creating an alternative (as opposed to a replacement) to SQLFORM.
There is a reason you have to call SQLFORM explicitly (or call crud which calls SQLFORM) and it is not implicit. The reason that one may not want to use it. With a replacement you do not need to wory about backward compatibility and may not need to use FORM validation mechanism at all. Massimo On Jan 13, 2:59 pm, Thadeus Burgess <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm not sure there is a good solution with the current design. > > At the moment, I am compiling a document with problem with the current form > system. Along with the document I am also including topics that come up in > the google groups and specific issues that continue to arise where the > solution does not seem logical. > > When I feel that I have a solution that would work I will share this > document. A working solution being something that sticks to web2py > philosophy, and hopefully as backwards compatible as can be. > > -Thadeus > > On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 2:47 PM, mdipierro <[email protected]> wrote: > > kward compatibility aside. How would you d > >
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "web2py-users" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/web2py?hl=en.
