Hi<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2010/10/27 Ganesh <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ganesh@j4fry.org">ganesh@j4fry.org</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
LU> I agree with you, just note as it was mentioned before we still need to do something<br>
LU> to allow multiple action attributes for a single composite component, as reported here:<br>
LU><br>
LU> <a href="https://javaserverfaces-spec-public.dev.java.net/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=859" target="_blank">https://javaserverfaces-spec-public.dev.java.net/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=859</a><br>
LU><br>
LU> The idea of introduce cc:attribute "targetName" sounds good. In theory with this attribute<br>
LU> we don't need add method-signature, because it can be inferred from the value of targetName.<br>
LU> In the example posted by me, since the attribute name is "action", the method-signature<br>
LU> is not required.<br>
LU><br>
LU> regards,<br>
LU><br>
LU> Leonardo Uribe<br>
<br>
Wouldn't your patch for <a href="https://javaserverfaces-spec-public.dev.java.net/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=755" target="_blank">https://javaserverfaces-spec-public.dev.java.net/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=755</a> include working with other action attribute names? E.g.<br>
<br>
<cc:interface><br>
<cc:attribute name="testAction"/><div class="im"><br>
<cc:attribute name="label"/><br>
</cc:interface><br>
<cc:implementation><br></div>
<h:commandButton value="#{cc.attrs.label}" action="#{cc.attrs.testAction}"/><br>
</cc:implementation><br>
<br>
or even<br>
<br>
<cc:interface><br>
<cc:attribute name="testAction1"/><br>
<cc:attribute name="testAction2"/><div class="im"><br>
<cc:attribute name="label"/><br>
</cc:interface><br>
<cc:implementation><br></div>
<ez:button value="#{cc.attrs.label}" action="#{cc.attrs.testAction1}"/><br>
<h:commandButton value="#{cc.attrs.label}" action="#{cc.attrs.testAction2}"/><br>
</cc:implementation><br>
<br>
is what developers expect to work. If it's necessary for the implementation they will accept a method-signature. I don't like te idea of introducing one more obscure target family attribute like targetName. Instead I'd prefer to try and make targets obsolete.<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br>I don't think it is posible to use the previous syntax, because it is necessary to declare in some<br>way that the attribute will receive a MethodExpression, otherwise a ValueExpression will be used<br>
and an error will be thrown. To do that we have two options:<br><br>1. use method-signature param, but extend this param to allow multiple signature definitions.<br>2. use "targetName" attribute to indicate implicitly the method-signature.<br>
<br>I think use "targetName" attribute is better.<br><br>Suggestions are welcome.<br><br>best regards,<br><br>Leonardo Uribe<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
Best regards,<br><font color="#888888">
Ganesh<br>
</font></blockquote></div><br>