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