[html-formfu] handling repeatable on the javascript side

[Mario Minati]

Am Dienstag 21 April 2009 14:37:43 schrieb Carl Franks:
> 2009/4/21 Mario Minati <mario.minati at googlemail.com>:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm just working on the implementation of client side repeatable elements
> > for ExtJS.
> >
> > What I stumbled about are more complex forms with repeatable repeatables
> > or nested repeatable or repeatable nested or ...
> >
> > Currently I see no automatic way to determine on the client side if a
> > given element name (e.g. inner.outer.name_1) is repeatable nested or
> > nested repeatable, right?
> >
> > The solution the came first to my mind was to analyse the form elements
> > to discover which is repeatable and which is only nested. But that will
> > not work in ExtJS if you choose to display e. g. each repeatable elements
> > in it's own tab (when using a tabpanel). And I didn't want to trade
> > flexibilty automation.
> >
> > So I'm currently thinking of creating a picture of the repeatable and
> > nested structure on the server side and sending this to the client, so
> > the client can easily findout on how to build form and element names.
> >
> > What do you think of this?
> >
> > Can you think of any more elegant solution?
> >
> > And shall we put the code to generate that 'picture' of the form
> > structure into generic formfu, a plugin or just into FF::ExtJS class?
>
> That's certainly a viable solution.
>
> However, I'd prefer it if the Repeatable munging of field names were
> "fixed" so that, for example, a repeatable-repeatable wasn't
>     foo.bar_1_1
> but
>     foo_1.bar_1
>
> I think this would solve your dilemma of needing to differentiate
> between repeatable + nested.

This would be the most elegant solution and means rewriting the nested_name 
handling.

If you agree with that way, than I'm willing to dive into that task.

Currently the code that changes the field names lives in Repeatable.pm in the 
method repeat.
Actually I think changing that method to add '_$rep' to the nested_name should 
do (roughly) the job.

To do it correctly I would like to comment the repeat method very intensive. 
Is that ok when commiting those comments?

Shall make the behavior configurable to keep backwards compatibility?


Greets,

Mario