- From: Jason <jeacott@hardlight.com.au>
- Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 17:15:49 +0930
- To: Victor Bolshov <crocodile2u@yandex.ru>
- CC: www-forms <www-forms@w3.org>
Thanks Victor, you are of course correct, but it wouldnt be too tough for the spec to allow the wrapping of the submissions with some arbitrary element, or to use the model element name as a default. Your use case and solution are fine as long as you are only talking about responding to one form or one person. In my case I have a complex and arbitrary workflow, and multiple different xforms acting as the UI depending on the user and the flow. so even in a relatively simple case for example I will have: user A submits data. User B is alerted (via email or sms) that there is something they need to deal with. User B logs on and is presented with a different form with options to acept/reject with message. - She Rejects with message. User A: is alerted (via email/sms etc) User A: logs on and views the existing data (modifiable by them) and the message for why it was rejected. They resubmit - possibly with a new message of their own. User B: is alerted, logs on and this time accepts. The data is then to be emailed to 0-X people + saved to a central store. The flow messaging should not be stored - but in this case will be kept by the jbpm log anyway which is perfect in this case. This is a pretty standard and somewhat trivial case - imagine what it would be like when it gets complex with groups of authorisers, flows based on flows, and more ancillary data than just messages. It would be nice to have the choice to keep my data separate from my working stuff. The xform itself lets me do this, but it wont let me submit it all to the server so I can keep it together easily. It seems that probably my only real option at the moment is to add all this working stuff to my data instance, make sure ALL my forms can cope with all the variations in the potential schema, and then delete it all when I need to store the data I actually want. Incidentally, in my case because I have left the definitions of who should be emailed the final data up to the xform itself, it does make for some weird thought processes to integrate with the workflow engine though. Xforms email submissions etc are very handy, but unless its a simple relatively standalone form, I'm not sure they should really be used as in my case. It just feels weird. Thanks for your input Victor. Regards Jason. Victor Bolshov wrote: > I am not that much a specialist, so my answer is definitely not the one > you should rely on. > > But, it seems that, submitting multiple instances at once will result in > submitting an invalid XML. Each instance document is a valid XML, but > once we put two instance documents together they become invalid - they > do not have a common root element. > > Now about your example with messages. I had a similar problem. The > instance data were sent to server where they had to pass through > validation (XMLSchema and also domain-specific validation, such check > for unique values and so on). I had to let the user know about those > validation errors. What I've done was: > > I've made an <instance id="errorList">. The <submission> element was as > follows: <submission replace="instance" instance="errorList">. > > The server response consisted of <error> elements wrapped in the root > <errorList> element - so I could show server-side validation errors to > the user. > > Again, it is possible that I just get you (and your problem) wrong... > > Hope my answer was of interest. Victor. >
Received on Friday, 22 September 2006 07:46:28 UTC