W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-forms@w3.org > August 2007

Re: Asynchronous submission is the default?

From: Erik Bruchez <ebruchez@orbeon.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 15:42:55 +0200
Message-ID: <46B9C85F.4010306@orbeon.com>
To: "Forms WG (new)" <public-forms@w3.org>


 > Well, the discussion about why asynchronous submission became the
 > default also covered the fact that it isn't good practice in XForms
 > 1.0 to use a sequence of send actions where each submission launched
 > by a send counts on the successful completion of its predecessor.
 > The reason is that you have no way to know whether the submission
 > completed successfully or whether there was an error.  So the
 > sequence is fragile.
 > The best practice is to put the send action that initiates a
 > successor submission into the xforms-submit-done handler of its
 > predecessor submission.  This way, if a submission fails, it does
 > not continue with the sequence of submissions as if nothing went
 > wrong.  Instead, the form does whatever the author specifies should
 > be done to recover from the error.
 > This best practice is also interesting because it works whether the
 > submission is synchronous or asynchronous.

That's a good point. I guess because often we call submissions from
the server-side to built-in services, we have not been as sensitive to
that fragility. But I reckon that reacting to xforms-submit-done is
the only robust way of executing follow-up actions, even though from a
syntactical point of view this is not always obvious.

I realize that this is not the current topic, but to solve the syntax
issue, you could still imagine xforms:submission as an action:

     <xforms:submision ...>
         <xforms:submission ...>


Orbeon Forms - Web Forms for the Enterprise Done the Right Way
Received on Wednesday, 8 August 2007 13:43:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:13:53 UTC