[jsr-314-open-mirror] [jsr-314-open] composite components: targets attribute revisited

[David Geary]

2010/10/29 Jakob Korherr <jakob.korherr at gmail.com>

> Hi guys,
>
> Thanks, Andy! Frankly I also do not really like the term "insert"
> here, because - as you said - it just does not fit that well. However
> I really, really like "implements" - this is just soo much better :)
>
> <h:commandButton ....>
>    <cc:implementsActionSource name="myActionSource" />
> </h:commandButton>
>
> Really beautiful!


It seems that I am perhaps the only dissenting voice here, but I don't care
for this solution.

To those of us that understand the rationale for removing targets and adding
these cc:implements... tags, the new tags make perfect sense. But to the
uninitiated, they will be bewildering. What does it mean for a button to
"implements action source"? Buttons already implement action source. IMO,
targets are much easier to understand, and to explain.

I understand the urge to remove the targets attribute based on their OO
impurity, but I think the solution could use some more thought. There are
already too many arcane oddities in JSF, whose rationale is only intuited by
high priests, and I hate to see us adding more.


david




>
> @Leonardo: I will open an issue for this on MyFaces tomorrow and
> provide some patches for it asap!
>
> Regards,
> Jakob
>
> 2010/10/29 Andy Schwartz <andy.schwartz at oracle.com>:
> > Hey Jakob -
> >
> > On 10/29/10 7:02 AM, Jakob Korherr wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Thinking more of it and trying out some prototypes, I now think
> >> Leonardo's approach is the way to go. Of course, it would somehow be
> >> possible to circumvent the problems mentioned before (like multiple
> >> action listeners or the missing f: tag for client behaviors), but
> >> after reading the vdldocs again, I think it's much more consistent
> >> with what we have right now.
> >>
> >> Consider the current facet solution: The user can provide facets for
> >> the composite component and the author of the composite component can
> >> add them to implementation-components via cc:insertFacet.
> >
> > Agreed.  I like the consistency in this approach.
> >
> > BTW, and slightly off-topic: composite:insertFacet's "name" attribute
> > suffers from the same problem as composite:attribute's "name" attribute:
> it
> > is also used to refer to both the interface name as well as the
> > implementation name.  See:
> >
> >
> https://javaserverfaces-spec-public.dev.java.net/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=631
> >
> > Interestingly, the recommended solution for this is to also add a
> > "targetName" attribute. :-)
> >
> > (This is a slightly different case, since composite:insertFacet lives in
> the
> > implementation section.)
> >
> >>  And this is
> >> exactly what we need for cc:actionSource, cc:valueHolder,
> >> cc:editableValueHolder and cc:clientBehavior.
> >>
> >> Thus I would propose the following new tags (from Leonardo's original
> >> proposal):
> >>
> >> <cc:insertActionSource name="XXX" />
> >> <cc:insertEditableValueHolder name="XXX"/>
> >> <cc:insertValueHolder name="XXX" />
> >> <cc:insertClientBehavior name="XXX" />
> >>
> >> What do you think?
> >>
> >
> > I like it. :-)  Though I wonder whether "insert" is the right verb to
> > describe what this tag is doing.  In the <cc:insertFacet> case, we
> literally
> > are inserting a facet component into the component tree.  In the
> > <cc:insertActionSource> case - we aren't really inserting an action
> source.
> >  The action source is already present: it is the parent of the
> > <cc:insertActionSource> tag.  It seems like the purpose of the
> > <cc:insertActionSource> tag is to identify that the parent action source
> > component provides the implementation of the action source that is
> > identified in the interface section.  Perhaps the verb "implements"
> captures
> > this better than "insert"?
> >
> >
> >  <composite:interface>
> >   <composite:actionSource name="loginButton"/>
> >  </composite:interface>
> >
> >  <composite:implementation>
> >   <h:commandButton>
> >     <composite:implementsActionSource name="loginButton"/>
> >   </h:commandButton>
> >  </composite:implementation>
> >
> > In any case, regardless of the tag name, I think that this is a much
> > improved approach.  Thanks for pushing this Jakob (and Leonardo, Martin
> and
> > Ganesh too)!
> >
> > Andy
> >
> >> Regards,
> >> Jakob
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Jakob Korherr
>
> blog: http://www.jakobk.com
> twitter: http://twitter.com/jakobkorherr
> work: http://www.irian.at
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/jsr-314-open-mirror/attachments/20101029/3b901a5d/attachment-0002.html