Information about PFBC 2.0

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Hi,

Thank you for PFBC 2.0 Prototype.

I am at the middle of a web apps using your v 1.1.4 but the forms are little 
slower online. Version 2.0 seems much more streamlined.

When do you think the production version of 2.0 will be out and time frame for 
it?

Will their be any syntax / parameters changes on final methods used by v. 1.1.4 
?

Your help would greatly help me make my decisions.

Thanks
Kaushal

Original issue reported on code.google.com by kaushal....@gmail.com on 14 Feb 2011 at 1:57

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Kaushal,

Currently, there is no time frame on the release of a production version of 
pfbc 2.0.  If you're developing web apps right now and you want to use this 
project, my advice would be to stick with the latest 1.x release.

For future reference, if you're not reporting an issue with functionality 
included in this project, please use the project's mailing list found at 
groups.google.com/group/php-form-builder-class.

Thanks,
Andrew

Original comment by ajporterfield@gmail.com on 14 Feb 2011 at 4:09

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Thanks for your response Andrew,

I just checked your v2 release 2.

Couple of questions:

1. Syntax:

$form->addElement(new PFBC\Element\Textbox("My Textbox:", "MyTextbox"));

old method: 

$form->addTextbox("Username","username","", array("required" => 1));

Is this a permanent change and will follow in final release as well?

2. Token for spam protection:

Right now, I don't see token field generated, if they will come back in future, 
would you please make sure this is optional ?

Somewhere here: 
$form = new PFBC\Form("pfbc", 400 , array('token'=>false));

When we login to web app, I think not necessary to create these extra fields 
and check on secure section after login.

Also, better to use, CSS to make the token fields hidden then JavaScript.

3. Form Layout

The reason I used your project was the map option of form's attribute to build 
custom form layout, I think that was wonderful but that was somehow javascript 
dependent was it ?

Is it possible to use some css based solution for this ?
Something like : http://www.960.gs/
So form still look beautiful when their is no javascript ?

Thank You
Best Regards
Kaushal

Original comment by kaushal....@gmail.com on 16 Feb 2011 at 1:21

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Also,

not sure I understand this very well but I would like to share my thoughts on 
use of session for error handling on server side.

I am not big fan of using session for validation.

Can't we compose a serialized array on hidden field for validation and check 
made based on that ?
That shouldn't make performance boost and make it more compatible?

Advice ?
Regards
Kaushal

Original comment by kaushal....@gmail.com on 16 Feb 2011 at 1:32

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Answers to your questions/comments.

1.  Syntax - Most likely, yes.
2.  Token for Spam Protection - Tokens will not be included in the next major 
release (2.0).
3.  Form Layout - The form layout function will eventually makes it's way into 
a future release of the 2.0 prototype.  In previous versions, the css needed 
was loaded into the head tag with javascript for xhtml strict compatibility.  
At this time, I'm not planning on following the same strategy moving forward.  
Instead, css will just be rendered within the body tag.
4.  Session Error Handling - Please send me a patch containing the hidden field 
implementation you're describing.  I will review and provide feedback.

Thanks,
- Andrew

Original comment by ajporterfield@gmail.com on 16 Feb 2011 at 4:34

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Original comment by ajporterfield@gmail.com on 14 Mar 2011 at 3:12

• Changed state: Done