Re: [jsr-314-open] [293-Ajax] REOPEN rename <f:ajax> to <f:clientBehavior>?

Hi Ed - I can see the argument that we should provide a generic <f:clientBehavior> that plays the same role that <f:converter> and <f:validator> play for Converters and Validators - ie. allows the page author to attach an arbitrary attached object instance by id/ binding. (I kind of thought that we might have provided this already, but looking at the release candidate 2 PFD tag docs, I do not see this.) However, I do not see <f:clientBehavior> as as a replacement for <f:ajax>, but an addition to our tag API. Since such an addition would make the Behavior API more consistent with our Converter/Validator APIs - something we've been striving for from the start of the Behavior API design process - I would be happy to see this go in. I am very much opposed, however, to removing the <f:ajax> tag in favor of a generic <f:clientBehavior> tag, for the same reasons that I would be opposed to removing, say, <f:convertNumber> in favor of the generic <f:converter> tag. Andy Ed Burns wrote On 4/23/2009 4:43 AM ET: > I am opening the 2.0 door a crack to consider this one renaming > change. > Don't expect that I'll let other things through. > > Several people have suggested renaming f:ajax to f:clientBehavior. > Here > are some arguments for and against renaming. > > Arguments for renaming > > * more correct. The attached object is a clientBehavior > > * it's possible and likely to use the tag for non-ajax things > > * this is the 20% case > > Arguments against renaming > > * most users will be using the tag for Ajax > > * IDE autocomplete is important to consider. Many new users rely > heavily on this feature and if we don't have an ajax tag, we force > them to look at the docs. Autocomplete junkies hate that. > > * this is the 80% case > > My opinion is not to rename, but Pete, Martin and I have different > thoughts on this so I'll bring it to the EG. > > Ed >