W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-forms@w3.org > May 2006

Re: binds using index()?

From: John Boyer <boyerj@ca.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 15:20:24 -0700
To: Ulrich NicolasLissť <u.n.l@gmx.net>
Cc: Allan Beaufour <beaufour@gmail.com>, www-forms <www-forms@w3.org>, www-forms-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF0953A799.9B372598-ON8825717F.007A9FA1-8825717F.007AB82F@ca.ibm.com>
Same here.
This allows expressions to have a reasonable behavior if evaluated before 
the UI is constructed.

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





Ulrich Nicolas Lissť <u.n.l@gmx.net> 
Sent by: www-forms-request@w3.org
05/31/2006 02:22 PM

To
Allan Beaufour <beaufour@gmail.com>
cc
www-forms <www-forms@w3.org>
Subject
Re: binds using index()?







Allan,

I've implemented index() in Chiba to always return 1 before 
xforms-model-construct-done is finished. Might be not that elaborated 
but works fine for most cases.

Uli.

Allan Beaufour wrote:
> 
> If a bind is using the index() function in either @nodeset or any of
> the MIPs, what should the behaviour be on form load? Is it illegal and
> result in an xforms-compute-exception? Or should index() at that point
> return 0 or NaN?
> 
> The problem is that binds are processed during xforms-model-construct,
> but UI is constructed during xforms-model-construct-done.
> 
[http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xforms-20060314/slice4.html#evt-modelConstruct] 

> 
> 
> Just finding the repeat, and grabbing the @startindex does not work.
> Because the startindex might be higher than the actual size of the
> nodeset the repeat is bound to, and 1) it has not been bound yet, and
> 2) it might be bound using a @bind using an index() function ... ouch.
> 


-- 
Ulrich Nicolas Lissť
Received on Wednesday, 31 May 2006 22:20:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 10 March 2012 06:22:04 GMT