On 24/07/2008, at 5:07 PM, Anjo Krank wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Who hasn't been annoyed by the format and configuration of the .api
> files... as we (er, Mike) now control the tools, we might as well
> support a better form of defining wocomponent apis, and one which
> can also show up in java docs. We already have the ..inding foo Foo
> to bind to" javadoc tag, but could do better with annotations with
> sth like:
>
>..nterface WOBindingDefinition {
> String name();
>
> Whatever defaultValues();
> ... more stuff...
> }
>
>..nterface WOBindingValidation {
> String condition();
> String fail();
> }
>
> and in a component:
>
>..OBindingDefinition { name="isDue",
> defaultValues=Binding.BOOL_VALUES}
>..OBindingDefinition { name="dueDate", defaultValues
> =Binding.DATE_VALUES}
>
>..OBindingValidation {
> condition = "(dueDate = SET and isDue=UNSET)", fail="If dueDate is
> set then isDue must also be set";
> }
>..OBindingValidation {
> condition = "(dueDate = SET and isDue=UNSET)", fail="If dueDate is
> set then isDue must also be set";
> }
>
> You could not only read and eval these in the WOD editor, you could
> provide your own selection lists, you would get actual java doc for
> free and you could also check this on load in the runtime. And it
> would make writing validations WAY easier than it is now (whoever
> came up with these weirdo inverted logic??)...
Yes, it does my head in too.
> What do you think?
Looks interesting, but how would you write something like this one?
<validation message="Either items, nameKey and valueKey or dataset
must be bound">
<or>
<and>
<or>
<unbound name="items"/>
<unbound name="nameKey"/>
<unbound name="valueKey"/>
</or>
<unbound name="dataset"/>
</and>
<and>
<or>
<bound name="items"/>
<bound name="nameKey"/>
<bound name="valueKey"/>
</or>
<bound name="dataset"/>
</and>
</or>
</validation>
-- Seeya...QQuinton Dolan - qdola..mail.com Gold Coast, QLD, Australia (GMT+10) Ph: +61 419 729 806
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Thu Jul 24 2008 - 06:02:17 EDT