Hi garz

> Betreff: Re: [Zope3-Users] thoughts about z3c.form-package
> hi roger,
> thanks again. :) sry for writing so much nonsense and dont 
> getting my point clearly described. didnt want to waste your 
> time and i try to improve on that.
> Roger Ineichen wrote:
> > Fields are a fundamental part of
> > our concept and are the component which allows you to 
> define things at 
> > python class level. (not in instance methods) This makes it very 
> > simple to work with. or not?
> yes, fields are very nice and its really simple and fast to 
> work with them.
> i like this very much and i want to keep them. they are even 
> a little contribution in improving runtime-performance.
> i think its important to make clear my motivation why im 
> doing this (to keep you replying :D): the whole thing why i 
> want to write a new implementation of z3c.form is trying. i 
> want to try to make it better and i want to see if this can 
> be done. its just playing around a little. im not planning to 
> replace z3c.form. prolly my version will never be seen by 
> anyone, prolly i will just give up and use z3c.form. but 
> maybe, whats very unlikely, i present a different version, if 
> i finish and i think its better. maybe someone gets 
> interested, maybe not, i dont care. :) maybe it will just be 
> interesting from a theoretically point of view.
> now i try it again, this time making my point as clear as i can:
> is there a use-case, where a field gets rendered to a 
> different widget than the browser-widget?
> with this question i want to find out, if fields are 
> abstracting widgets _globally_, so to speak. the way a widget 
> is created from a field is:
> getMultiAdapter([field, request], IFieldWidget). if there is 
> a different request, a different widget can be adapted. i'm 
> thinking about a
> >>non-http-request<<! one that doesnt require browser-widgets, but 
> >>different
> ones.
> or the question posed a little differently: did you have in 
> mind to support none-browser-widgets?
> if not, than i see why widgets can be used stand-alone and 
> why an action already is a browser-widget.
> this is very important to me because it influences the way i 
> will conceptualize fields and therefor implement them.
> i hope i could make it clear now. its enough if you just post 
> a yes or no, to save your time. :D but feel free to give 
> explanation, if you like. :) (otherwise i will ask anyway... ;P)

short answer yes,

you can write a pdf with form elements where the user can fill out.
Then if a user can upload such an edited pdf, you can parse
the file and use widgets for extract the data. Of corse you 
have to write a parser for that. I guess this could be done 
with special pdf widgets and data converters.

Or if someone likes to implement ExtJS widgets or dojo
widgets etc. Then they onle need to implement the browser
widgets (representation). There is no reason to change
the field or something else.

Roger Ineichen

> i'm harassing, i know, please be kind to me. =)
> best regards, gards
> --
> View this message in context: 
> http://www.nabble.com/thoughts-about-z3c.form-package-tp198692
> Sent from the Zope3 - users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> _______________________________________________
> Zope3-users mailing list
> Zope3-users@zope.org
> http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope3-users

Zope3-users mailing list

Reply via email to