On Thu, 2004-02-12 at 23:24, Ralph Goers wrote: > Yes, I do appreciate that there is a status associated with the blocks and > perhaps I shouldn't be so harsh. However, I have seen folks in the users > list saying that Woody is the recommended approach for forms handling. How > can an unstable block be the recommended approach?
Maybe because there are no alternatives, or they are even worse than an "unstable block"? > I've also seen questions > about whether woody is stable and being answered with "Yes". No, it's always answered with Yes, but ... > If so, it > shouldn't be marked as unstable and things should be locked down. > > This is somewhat off-topic from my previous post but, as I've said before, > we have looked at woody and have not made the move yet - we are still using > the simple forms stuff. We like what we see, but so much of the examples > documentation is geared towards flow that we have a hard time separating the > two. We won't be using flowscript so we really need "Cocoon Forms" to be > completely separate from it. And it is! If you find situations where it isn't the case, just let us know. > The major stumbling block was in the areas of > Woody Bindings - the only provided solution seems to require flowscript. I'm amazed how you can say that when I've just answered a question to you (on the users list) about that a couple of hours ago. If my answer didn't satisfy you, just say so. Now I'm starting to realize that maybe you're not asking for Java code samples, but for pre-made actions that you can call with some parameters? -- Bruno Dumon http://outerthought.org/ Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
