Re: Possible Drag & Drop Feature Req

From: Mike Schrag (mschra..dimension.com)
Date: Wed May 14 2008 - 10:35:23 EDT

  • Next message: David Avendasora: "Re: Possible Drag & Drop Feature Req"

    > For instance, for dynamic elements, the API doesn't give any
    > indication at all of the expected type of the binding.
    >
    > Yeah, on a different note, this is really not helpful. Is there
    > anything that can be done about that? This can be a hurdle to new-
    > comers because without examples to follow they are left with
    > guessing and trial and error to figure out what certain bindings
    > expect. It would be awesome if the code completion for bindings
    > could show the classname(s) in addition to the binding name.
    We would need to change the API file format to allow this.
    Technically, while I could just do this, the right way is to have
    Apple define an addition to the format to support this. While it's
    only currently used by the tools, it's still part of the WO
    specification. I think an optional type = "NSArray" or type =
    "com.webobjects.foundation.NSArray", and maybe support for multiple
    type with something like "com.webobjects.foundation.NSArray|
    java.util.List" (that's a pipe) to allow things like the "list"
    binding on WORepetition. This should be optional, though, to maintain
    backwards compatibility with old API files.

    ms



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Wed May 14 2008 - 10:36:33 EDT