[jsr-314-open] <h:dataTable> binding vs. ui:repeat

[Ed Burns]

>>>>> On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 08:31:51 +0200, Martin Marinschek <mmarinschek at apache.org> said:

MM> Hi Lincoln,
>> Unless I'm mistaken, ui:repeat is not a component and therefore cannot
>> be bound to a backing bean,

MM> I thought it was - and just checked, it derives from UIComponentBase.
MM> Does the binding attribute not work for you?

Yes, but it's implementation specific and not in the
javax.faces.component package.

LB> **Question 1: Almost every AJAX framework I know of allows you to simply
LB> execute a method on the server side, with or without params, and return
LB> a result... is this possible with JSF's Ajax framework?

Such DWR style functionality was in DynamicFaces, but didn't make it
into the JSF standard Ajax.

>>>>> On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 00:10:59 +0100, Pete Muir <pmuir at redhat.com> said:

PM> IMO this is not an uncommon use case, and we should support via (1)

Can you please be more specific, Pete?  Which part of LB's mail is not
an uncommon case?  What is (1)?

>>>>> On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 00:26:14 +0200, Martin Marinschek <mmarinschek at apache.org> said:

MM> Hi Dan,
MM> I did a little research, and it won't work. Therefore I just sent a
MM> mail out to the JSR-245 spec lead asking for the following signature
MM> in the EL-resolver - that might help at least a little in providing
MM> such functionality. And I thought we had discussed that this should
MM> work at some point of time.

MM>    public Object invoke(ELContext context,
MM>                          Object base,
MM>                          Object method,
MM>                          Class[] formalParamTypes,
MM>                          Object[] formalParams,
MM> 			    Class[] parsedParamTypes,
MM> 			    Object[] parsedParams
MM> 			    ) {
MM>         ...
MM>     }

>>>>> On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 01:45:45 +0200, Martin Marinschek <mmarinschek at apache.org> said:

MM> 1) add a method-attribute to the f:valueChangeListener-tag

You mean, have an attribute that means, "The value of this attribute
must be a MethodExpression that points to a method that conforms to the
signature of ValueChangeListener.processValueChange()"?  If so, then yes
I agree, and we should add it for all the attached objects where it
makes sense.

MM> 2) get Unified-EL to also support passing the formal parameters (see
MM> my mail to the spec lead)

Which I still don't understand.  Can you please explain explicitly?

Thanks,

Ed


-- 
| ed.burns at sun.com  | office: 408 884 9519 OR x31640
| homepage:         | http://ridingthecrest.com/