[Grok-dev] Re: Grok Widgets / Fields (Was Re: Re: [grok-br] Grok
1.0 and beyond)
Fernando Correa Neto
fcdoth at gmail.com
Mon Jan 7 20:54:29 EST 2008
On Jan 7, 2008 11:32 PM, Martijn Faassen <faassen at startifact.com> wrote:
> Dirceu Pereira Tiegs wrote:
> > I volunteer to help with that, I have some (night) time until 11/02.
> > For an initial TODO list we have:
> > * Widgets/fields/validation for email addresses, postal codes, URLs,
> > date / time, more?
z3c.widget is definitely a good start.
> > * Look at Martin Aspeli's kupu/formlib integration
> > (http://svn.plone.org/svn/plone/plone.app.form/branches/plip200-kupu-widget);
> > * Look at collective.namedfile
> > (http://pypi.python.org/pypi/collective.namedfile);
> > * Look at the tinymce-based widget from JW Kolman / Martijn Faasen;
> I suggest looking through the various things in svn.zope.org as well.
> I'm sure that there are some fields and widgets lurking in there.
> > * Look at z3c.form and see if it is the best approach.
> While I encourage doing this, I'd say this is a longer-term project. I
> expect we'll be sticking with formlib for a while longer and z3c.form
> shouldn't distract us from getting widgets that will work for us today.
My experience with z3c.form is that is has a lot of
functionality....but very componentized :). Creating conventions for
forms, subforms, fieldgroups, wizards or even buttons would be a
nightmare. But don't let me stop you.
> > +1, but I agree with Wichert: the widgets should not be grok-specific.
> > We could work on improving / creating new widgets and only use
> > megrok.widgets to provide an uniform import location.
If those widgets are the ones providing grok conventions +1, if not,
then just go ahead and make z3c.widget a better widget library.
> Sure, I agree.
> Grok-dev mailing list
> Grok-dev at zope.org
More information about the Grok-dev