Re: QFC is horrible hack? [was: Can you serialize a Formbuilder object?]

On 7/1/05, Ken Restivo <ken@restivo.org> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 02:25:43PM -0700, Justin Patrin wrote: > > > Would you please tell me how to repopulate the form values previously > > > obtained after the new form is regenerated? > > > > You mean put the form values back in the form? Since > > HTML_QF_Controller is a hack (yes, it's a horrible hack) it's not too > > easy to do this. However, I believe that the HTML_QF_Controller > > package supports this intrinsically...you can always pass the posted > > array to setDefaults. > > > > A "horrible hack"??! Ah, that's not what I wanted to hear right now. I'm in > the (slow,painful) process of rewriting my whole app to make it work with QFC, because I desperately > need that functionality. > > I find QFC annoying (object callbacks? gah.) and hard to work with, but I didn't realise > that PEAR experts considered it horrible. > > If it's "horrible hack", am I wasting my time and limited braincells in doing > this conversion? Is it a pointless exercise to use this package? Should I just write my own custom > code do to multi-page forms, instead of using QFC? Is QFC going away and being replaced by something > that is not a "horrible hack"? Will I have to re-write my app all over again at that time, > in order to work with it? > > Frightened and anguished minds want to know. > I didn't mean that you shouldn't use the package. It works pretty well and the hack I refer to is one way of getting around some of the deficiencies in the QF package (which will have a new version eventually). If you do anything complicated with QFC you're likely to have to hack around some issues with it but there are many people who use it so you can likely find someone in the same situation to help. -- Justin Patrin