Re: copy action

On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 19:47:30 +0100, Erik Bruchez <ebruchez@orbeon.com>  
wrote:

> I am not against a `<replace>` action, in fact it is a pretty  
> fundamental operation which I think we should have.
>
> But I am not sure that would have to mean "keep the element and replace  
> its content". What if the `with` points to an element with a different  
> name?

Well, that is how setvalue works, so I thought it good to keep it  
consistent.

> But I might not have understood your suggestion clearly.
>
> I suggest that a `<replace>` action would in effect have to remove the  
> existing element and replace it with another, but it would do so as an  
> indivisible operation from the >perspective of the user of the action.
Sounds feasible.

Steven

>
> -Erik
>
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 8:31 AM Steven Pemberton  
> <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl> wrote:
>> So we discussed this in the call, and I thought about an example to  
>> illustrate the effect using <insert/>, but I'm still not happy.
>>
>>          <trigger label="Copy value">
>>            <action ev:event="DOMActivate">
>>              <setvalue ref="total" value="instance('source')/total"/>
>>            </action>
>>          </trigger>
>>
>>          <trigger label="Copy content">
>>            <action ev:event="DOMActivate">
>>              <insert ref="address" origin="instance('source')/address"/>
>>              <delete ref="address[1]"/>
>>            </action>
>>          </trigger>
>>
>> From an abstract point of view, it is doing something different,  
>> removing the element, and replacing it with something else. I still  
>> would prefer something that leaves the referenced element, and replaces  
>> its content with the content of another element:
>>
>>          <trigger label="Copy content">
>>            <action ev:event="DOMActivate">
>>              <replace ref="address" with="instance('source')/address"/>
>>            </action>
>>          </trigger>
>>
>> (This is only a strawman; <setcontent/> would also be fine).
>>
>> I agree that there are some issues to discuss, such as what to do with  
>> attributes, but I still think this is more obvious than the  
>> insert/delete route.
>>
>> Steven
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 11:47:30 +0100, Steven Pemberton  
>> <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl> wrote:
>>
>>> The funniest things come to you just as you are falling asleep.
>>>
>>> I was thinking how if you had a hidden select1 with an itemset with  
>>> <copy/>, and then used a setvalue to change the value of the select1,  
>>> you could use it to copy whole subtrees from one instance to another,
>>>
>>> But then I realised that that just means we are missing a <copy/>  
>>> action to go alongside <setvalue/>.
>>>
>>> Steven