[html-formfu] handling repeatable on the javascript side

[Carl Franks]

2009/4/21 Mario Minati <mario.minati at googlemail.com>:
> 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?

Yes - feel free to do it!
Yes - comments are good :)

Backwards compatibility? Unless someone pipes up that they already
have client-side code depending on it - don't bother - it'll just make
our code more complicated.

Cheers,
Carl