[Catalyst] Re: HTML::FormFu and Rose::DB::Object?

[Peter Karman]

Quinn Weaver scribbled on 4/4/07 1:12 AM:
> Bill Moseley wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, Apr 03, 2007 at 08:53:32PM -0700, Quinn Weaver wrote:
>>
>>> In contrast to FormBuilder, RHTMLO wants you to write your HTML form
>>> by calling Perl methods, somewhat in the spirit of CGI.pm.  This makes
>>> it hard for design people to edit the form.
>> Maybe I'm not understanding that paragraph, but in RHTMLO (IIRC) you
>> can do [% form.field('foo').xhtml %] in a template.  What are
>> you thinking would be easier for the design people?
> 
> No, you're right.  I didn't catch that possibility, though it's
> implicit in the documentation.  Partly because the docs tell you the
> details of all the methods you can call, but not the big picture of
> what they're good for--in other words, they're etic, not emic.
> 

yes, the docs are often very exhaustive (exhausting) but sometimes lacking in 
more simple overviews. That's partly why I put together the CatRose example.

Check out the example .tt files in the CatRose app in the C::C::Rose package,
especially edit.tt and view.tt.

You'll see that those are generic form templates, but in my apps I often 
override with specific form generation if it doesn't fit the generic model. Just 
like a real web designer would. ;)

I find that defining the form in YAML is one level removed from the XHTML 
itself, so I just define a base RHTMLO class with default labels for all my 
fields, and then do whatever the business requirements demand in the actual .tt 
files.

-- 
Peter Karman  .  http://peknet.com/  .  peter at peknet.com