Imagine you get a XML-spec your customer want data exported in. With my method, you may just be able to copy/paste the spec into a template-document. Add field references, and you are good to go.
The same with HTML-pages. Make a static mock-up in Aptana/DreamWeaver. Paste it into your template (maybe split it into modules), add field-references, and you have a nice-loking, valid (if that's what you're aiming for) dynamic (X)HTML-page.
To make/edit the documents, you can use the notes-generated form.
I've been wanting to do this for a while, but other experiments have overshadowed this. Thanks to this post by Michel Van Der Meiren, and a couple of beers this weekend, I finally got around to making a prototype.
Since I'm lazy, I don't take the time to make data. I use the FakeNames database, kindly provided by Jake.
I think making the templates took me about an hour, including finding out the names of the fields I was going to use. Rapid deployment..
Document in it's original form:
Simple table with header-module:
>> HTML Template source
>> XML Template source
>> Text Template source
Getting the correct content-type
To show the documents in a template, I have a view that opens the Person-documents in a form that has the correct content-type (Form Formula). In the demo, I look for Text or XML in the @UrlQueryString( "template" ). If XML, XML-form, text, Text form, else HTML-form. On WebQueryOpen, I run the agent that applies the template to the document. It prints its output to a NotesRichTextItem.
The template-query string decides which template to show the document in.
Processing the template
I first split UnformattedText of the body-field in the template on #%, which are used to process modules, if there are any. Example of module-reference, #%header#%.
I test each item in the resulting array, item Like "*[A-Z,a-z]". This simple testing-method should work for HTML/XML, because they containt a lot of has brackets, which are not Like A-Z. With text-templates, there may occur errors using this. For more complex content, you could make a LS2J-class that enables you to do Regular Expression tests of the content.
The reason I check for modules first, is that they can contain formula-snippets and field-references, which also should be processed.
In it's current state, it doesn't support modules within modules.
Then I look for field references, which are contained within #$, e.g. #$FirstName#$.
Finally, I look for formula-snippets, e.g. #@WebDbName#@, in the home-link of the simple table template, and pointing to a stylesheet in the application.
>> Demo application
If you're downloading the demoapp
All design-elements made for the demo have DontPanic as a comment. I cleaned out a lot of the original design-elements in the app, to make it easier to find what I made for the demo.
The agent that "renders" documents is called "RenderPage". It's not well commented, but I hope most of the code speaks for itself.
Open the db on the Web, click on one of the people to open the document in its original form.
At the top of the page, there is a button for each template I made for the demo.
All the templates are in the templates-view, modules (only one in the demo) in the modules-view.
Why should I care/You can already do this with a form+content-type HTML
If you add more advanced back-end processing, you could have inline LS/Function calls in the context of the document. e.g.
makeMenu( #@UserRoles#@ )
^^This using Execute.
I don't think you need to pass the document-object to the inline functions, since NotesSession.DocumentContext is a global object. From a little test, it seems like it's best to Update the RT-field before running each inline LS-modification to it.
@For( i:=0 ; i<10 ; i := i++;
- num := @Text(i);
html := html + "<tr><td>" + @GetField( "line" + num) + "</td></tr>"
"<table>" + html + "</table>"
You can of course do this with a a regular form using a WQO agent + computed elements, but what I hope my proposal of "Notes Templating" can do, is to add a layer of abstraction, maybe to make it easier for notes newbies to make Domino Webapps.
I also think this way is more readable than a lot of computed text/Computed For Display fields. The downside is that it adds processing overhead.
Comments/suggestions are greatly appreciated!