Hi - this doesn't surprise me, since I don't think combining "holds template" with "multiple" makes sense. How will the form know which instance of template A it should add each instance of template B to?

tafinho wrote:

Hi,

After awhile I gave up trying just because I got to the same conclusion as you, and that a problem realy exists.

However, my problem is not "Why" it doesn't work, but how to get how to get it to work. My end goal is, if possible, to create multi level form, in a tree.

Well, let me re-ask my question, then: how is the form supposed to decide which instance of B goes into which instance of A?

tafinho wrote:

I think i'm not gettin to your point.

Taking your example from somewhere, should be similar to the following

{{Person
...

...
}}

if you can embed one template onto another, doing it recursively should be possible right?
Or am I missing something?

Oh, I see - you want one "location" template in every "Place lived" template. (In other words, one instance of B for every instance of A.) That's not possible - but if that's all you want to do, why bother with a "location" template at all; why not just pass all the fields in directly to "Place lived"?

tafinho wrote:

(In reply to comment #5)

Oh, I see - you want one "location" template in every "Place lived" template.
(In other words, one instance of B for every instance of A.) That's not
possible - but if that's all you want to do, why bother with a "location"
template at all; why not just pass all the fields in directly to "Place
lived"?

Hi,

Because I'd like to scale it horizontaly and vertically, for a tree structure:

{{class
...

Or from the tree perspective (not really equal as above):

Class

|
|-> Subclass
|    |
|    |-> Subsubclass
|    |
|    |-> Subsubclass
|
|-> Subclass
|
|-> Subclass

The problem is that my goal is to make all subclasses anonymous, inside the same object/page, otherwise I could simply create new pages.

Right?

Okay - that's a rather different structure from the example you gave before. But I have no plans to have SF handle that level of complexity. Plus, SMW can't store more than two levels of data anyway.

tafinho wrote:

Understood.
I need to study SMW a little further before going deeper on this.

Changing this to "wontfix".