On Aug 29, 2005, at 6:37 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:

On Monday, August 29, 2005 4:33 PM, Gary Poster wrote:

Couldn't 'initial_getter' just be implemented using a property
version of 'initial'?

Yes, it could.  The only downside is that it wouldn't be
usable as an
initialization argument.  I don't feel very strongly about it
one way
or the other.  It sounds like Jim is a definite -1 (as I thought he
might be :-) so I'm happy to drop it.

I think I agree with Jim, see my other post.

OK. He and I brainstormed a bit more about it. That does sound like part of a fruitful area for sprint conversations.

Cool. I don't know if this is the same thing, but we have a widget
that handles editing two related fields. One field is a boolean
that, when False, renders the other field not-applicable. E.g. when
the user unselects a checkbox, a list box becomes disabled. Our
implementation is a bit of a hack, since the widget has to cheat
and get access to additional fields.

Huh, interesting.  It sounds different.  What is the typical use for
this sort of field?

It's not a field -- it's a widget that cheats and updates multiple fields because the fields are closely related. Probably not worth worrying about at this point.


I can probably free up some time to look at SimpleInputWidget.

That would be great--you mean, during the same time as the
sprint, or
before, or after? If before or during, we should probably coordinate.

If the API falls into a collaboration category, I can try to be available via IRC. I suspect it will be more efficient to just have a brainstorm during the sprint, put together a simple proposal and work up a prototype. The SingleInputWidget Jim's talking about will end up looking a lot like SimpleInputWidget.


When is the sprint anyway? :-)

This Thursday and Friday, Sept. 1 & 2.

Zope3-dev mailing list
Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Reply via email to