Re: Deferred action behaviour

Hi Allan,

The working group has reviewed this issue and agrees with your assessment 
that deferred action updates are not supposed to bypass the event system.
This matter is being corrected as part of an erratum due to be published 
this week, the scope of which also includes a clarification of the meaning 
of outermost action as it relates to when deferred updates are performed.

Best regards,
John M. Boyer, Ph.D.
Senior Product Architect/Research Scientist
Co-Chair, W3C XForms Working Group
Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software
IBM Victoria Software Lab
E-Mail: boyerj@ca.ibm.com  http://www.ibm.com/software/

Blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/JohnBoyer





"Allan Beaufour" <beaufour@gmail.com> 
Sent by: www-forms-request@w3.org
05/18/2006 01:38 AM

To
www-forms <www-forms@w3.org>
cc

Subject
Deferred action behaviour







At the teleconf. "deferred action behaviour" was mentioned while
talking about events.

I've always thought that <setvalue/> follows the "Sequence: Value
Change", which sets the instance data, and then dispatches
xforms-recalculate, xforms-revalidate, xforms-refresh.
[http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xforms-20060314/slice4.html#rpm-event-seq-vcwfc]

So I then thought that inside an action block, the dispatching of
these events would be delayed until after the last action. So these
two:
(1)
<setvalue .../>
(2)
<action>
  <setvalue .../>
</action>
would be equivalent.

But, re-reading about actions, I suddenly see this:
"Each outermost action handler can be thought of as having a set of
Boolean flags, initially false, to indicate whether each of the
actions rebuild, recalculate, revalidate, and refresh are required
upon termination of the outer action handler."
[http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xforms-20060314/slice10.html#action-action]

These actions "bypass" the normal event system (which I think makes
sense). But shouldn't the <action/> dispatch events, and not use the
actions? With the current wording (1) would result in events, and (2)
would not.

It sounds wrong to me. I might have missed something though?

-- 
... Allan