[jsr-314-open-mirror] [jsr-314-open] [859-MultiActionComponent] RESOLVED (was: Re: Composite components only support one action) attribute (review of issue 859)

[Leonardo Uribe]

Hi

2010/10/28 Ed Burns <edward.burns at oracle.com>

> >>>>> On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 12:17:12 -0500, Leonardo Uribe <lu4242 at gmail.com>
> said:
>
> LU>
> https://javaserverfaces-spec-public.dev.java.net/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=859
>
> LU> and then Ed Burns propose another similar one, but filling the gaps in
> LU> documentation and integration with automated tests (That's cool!).
>
> LU> Instead call it "methodType", it was proposed targetAttributeName and
> added
> LU> this
> LU> documentation:
>
> LU> "...This attribute allows the name of the attribute exposed to the
> using
> LU> page to differ from the one actually used in the implementation.  For
> LU> example, consider a composite component that contains two buttons, one
> LU> that means "submit" and one that means "cancel".  It is natural to want
> LU> to declare two composite component attributes to allow these buttons to
> LU> be customized, for example, "submitAction" and "cancelAction".  For
> both
> LU> of these buttons, the method expression should be retargeted to the
>
> LU> inner button's "action" attribute.  This scenario would be expressed as
> LU> follows..."
>
> LU> And the proposal using "targetAttributeName" looks like this:
>
> As Martin pointed out in a private email, method-signature is optional.
> So either of these are valid:
>
> <cc:interface>
>  <cc:attribute name="submitAction" targetAttributeName="action" />
>  <cc:attribute name="cancelAction" targetAttributeName="action" />
> </cc:interface>
>
> <cc:interface>
>  <cc:attribute name="submitAction" targetAttributeName="action"
>                method-signature="java.lang.Object action()" />
>  <cc:attribute name="cancelAction" targetAttributeName="action"
>                method-signature="java.lang.Object action()" />
> </cc:interface>
>
>
Ok, I did a checkout and the example is there.


> LU> In my opinion, the syntax using "methodType" is preferred. In that one,
> we
> LU> are just
> LU> defining the attribute is used for the behavioral interface
> ActionSource, as
> LU> an "action",
> LU> and the method-signature declaration is not necessary anymore.
>
> I don't want to introduce the concept of type here.  We already have the
> concepts of method-signature, MethodExpression, and special attribute
> names.
>
> Therefore, I'm going with targetAttributeName.
>
> Committed revision 8688.
>
>
>
Ok, now I understand the intention. Yes, it sound good.

Thanks Ed for take a look to this issue.

best regards,

Leonardo Uribe


>
>
>
> LU> Note that this syntax already works (partially) without the patch:
>
> LU>   <cc:attribute name="submitAction" method-signature="java.lang.Object
> LU> action()"/>
>
> LU> I said "partially" because these two method signatures are valid for
> action:
>
> LU> java.lang.Object action()
> LU> void action()
>
> LU> The problem is more clear when "actionListener" is considered because
> it has
> LU> these two
> LU> valid signatures (since JSF 2):
>
> LU> void method(javax.faces.event.ActionEvent )
> LU> void method()
>
> LU> It is not possible to map it using method-signature, because it only
> allows
> LU> one of them, but
> LU> if we use a notation like this:
>
> LU>   <cc:attribute name="submitActionListener"
> methodType="actionListener"/>
>
> LU> The previous two signatures are assumed and problem solved. I still
> think
> LU> method-signature should allow multiple ones using ';', but before that
> (I
> LU> want to propose a
> LU> patch but not yet), I prefer the proposed patch using methodType.
>
> LU> Suggestions are welcome.
>
> LU> best regards,
>
> LU> Leonardo Uribe
>
> --
> | edward.burns at oracle.com | office: +1 407 458 0017
> | homepage:               | http://ridingthecrest.com/
> |  9 work days until German Oracle User's Group Conference
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/jsr-314-open-mirror/attachments/20101028/e946aec2/attachment-0002.html