[Cmb-users] [Smtk-developers] Proposed change to Attribute and Item Definitions

[David Thompson]

> ... There is one possible change I would like to propose and wanted to get your feedback on concerning how attribute definitions and item definitions are currently defined. ...  Note that how the information is to be represented in a GUI is (for the most part) not part of these classes but is represented in the Views.  The one exception are the Labels.  They represent the alternative way of displaying the "type" information of the attribute definition and the "name" information of the item definition.
> 
> Since in 5.0, the GUI generation will support specifying where items should be placed within a View's  widgets that are  rendering the information, I was wondering if moving the label information into View structure would make more sense.

I agree that labels belong with the view, not the items/attributes.

> It would allow workflows to customize how the type and name info is displayed (as well as allowing for localization).
> 
> Along those lines I was wondering if we should support allowing the Workflow the ability to "override" the default values of Items since (based on the assumption that a default values may be workflow specific).

That seems reasonable.

> Happy Thanksgiving!

Many happy returns of the morrow!

	David