[jsr-314-open-mirror] [jsr-314-open] [755-cc:attributesSpecialKeys] (was: Re: composite:attribute "targets" property does not match with ViewDeclarationLanguage.retargetMethodExpressions)

[Leonardo Uribe]

Hi

2010/10/27 Jakob Korherr <jakob.korherr at gmail.com>

> Hi,
>
> Just as an example of how badly we need #{cc.attrs.action} or
> #{cc.attrs.actionListener} to work in JSF 2.1, here is a mail from the
> myfaces-user-list from today (some parts are cut for clarity):
>
> For example imagine a simple component that uses a commandLink and has two
> attributes: "action" and "actionListener":
>
> <cc:interface>
>  <cc:attribute name="action" method-signature="java.lang.String action()"
> default="???" />
>  <cc:attribute name="actionListener" method-signature="void
> actionListener(javax.faces.event.ActionEvent)" default="???" />
> </cc:interface>
>
> <cc:implementation>
>  <tr:commandLink action="#{cc.attrs.action}"
> actionListener="#{cc.attrs.actionListener}" />
> </cc:implementation>
>
> ---> The users really expect this to work! Frankly I also do and I
> guess everyone else agrees.
>

I agree with you, just note as it was mentioned before we still need to do
something
to allow multiple action attributes for a single composite component, as
reported here:

https://javaserverfaces-spec-public.dev.java.net/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=859

The idea of introduce cc:attribute "targetName" sounds good. In theory with
this attribute
we don't need add method-signature, because it can be inferred from the
value of targetName.
In the example posted by me, since the attribute name is "action", the
method-signature
is not required.

regards,

Leonardo Uribe
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/jsr-314-open-mirror/attachments/20101027/17d4a779/attachment-0002.html