Re: [Exist-development] betterFORM integration issues

[James F. <jam...@ex...>]

thx Joern for the update,

will verify your commit tonite and check that all works, etc.

James Fuller

On 11 August 2010 12:11, Joern Turner <joe...@go...> wrote:
> Hi James et all,
>
> you might wonder why we still have not added our changes to trunk.
>
> Here is a list of open issues and questions which we found during more
> thorough testing:
>
> 1. When betterFORM is installed the admin.xql page breaks and shows an
> error when logging in or out and when clicking 'Examples Setup'.
> Probably other links on this page are also affected. We debugged that
> thing and found out that the reason is at admin.xql line 106 where an
> empty XForms model is added to the page but we could not see that this
> is used in any way. Is that probably remaining from an attempt to use
> XForms for the admin pages? Anyway this leads to our XFormsFilter
> becoming active and trying to process that page which then fails.
> Simply removing that empty model fixes the problem and the pages work
> again. If for any reason the removing of that empty model is not
> wanted let us know and we can set a header to suppress XForms
> processing for that page.
>
> 2. Is there any plan for a generic error-page? We have one that is
> implemented in xquery but that's specific for our needs (Though it
> should not be hard to adapt for the more generic case) and is
> configured via the standard <error-page> element in web.xml. This
> works for our eXist / betterFORM bundling but of course is not
> appropriate for integration in eXist as its now triggered for every
> error occuring in eXist.
>
> We can try to work around this and use a redirect in our XFormsFilter
> but i think i would be no fault to support the standard mechanism (via
> <error-page>). Can anyone comment on this?
>
> 3. We have added ourselves to the setup.xqm which we found easier to
> manage for us to install our sample application. We will comment out
> the relevant section in that file for James to review it. It works for
> us and we have tested it but double-checking would be good. Once you
> found it's ok you can remove the comments and activate it.
>
> Besides issue 2 we are ready for commit - we will look into this now
> and see that we can provide a less intrusive solution until a final
> decision has been made.
>