Hi Jakob,
+1 from my side,
best regards,
Martin
On 10/29/10, Jakob Korherr <jakob.korherr(a)gmail.com> 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. 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?
Regards,
Jakob
2010/10/29 Martin Marinschek <mmarinschek(a)apache.org>:
> Hi Gentlemen,
>
> I am leaning toward Jakob's approach, but if it is not possible due to
> the constraints Leonardo mentioned, then why not add the necessary
> tags?
>
> @Leonardo, Jakob: can you put your heads together and come up with a
> combined proposal?
>
> best regards,
>
> Martin
>
> On 10/29/10, Ed Burns <edward.burns(a)oracle.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 12:56:53 -0500, Leonardo Uribe
>>>>>>> <lu4242(a)gmail.com>
>>>>>>> said:
>>
>> LU> Hi
>> LU> To be more explicit, this is the example that should fail:
>>
>> LU> <ez:loginPanel id="loginPanel" model="#{bean}">
>> LU> <f:actionListener for="loginEvent"
>> LU> binding="#{bean.loginEventListener}"
/>
>> LU> <f:actionListener for="loginEvent"
>> LU> binding="#{bean.loginEventListener2}"
/>
>> LU> <f:actionListener for="cancelEvent"
>> LU> binding="#{bean.cancelEventListener}"
/>
>> LU> </ez:loginPanel>
>>
>> LU> <composite:interface name="loginPanel">
>> LU> <composite:actionSource name="loginEvent" />
>> LU> <composite:actionSource name="cancelEvent" />
>> LU> </composite:interface>
>> LU> <composite:implementation>
>> LU> <h:commandButton name="button1">
>> LU> <f:actionListener
>> LU> binding="#{cc.actionSource.loginEvent}"/>
>> LU> </h:commandButton>
>> LU> <x:mycompositecomponent name="button2">
>> LU> <f:actionListener
>> LU> binding="#{cc.actionSource.cancelEvent}"
for="someOtherEvent"/>
>> LU> </x:mycompositecomponent>
>> LU> </composite:implementation>
>>
>> LU> In this case, the binding #{cc.actionSource.loginEvent} does not
>> point
>> to
>> LU> just
>> LU> one actionListener.
>>
>> GP> Leo, IMO your example wouldn't need to fail: the nested
>> GP> actionListener with binding="#{cc.actionSource.loginEvent}"
would
>> GP> need to execute *all* actionListeners that have been bound to
>> GP> "loginEvent". In this case
"#{bean.loginEventListener}" and
>> GP> "#{bean.loginEventListener2}" would reside in a Map named
>> GP> cc.actionSource.loginEvent and could both be executed. Wouldn't this
>> GP> work?
>>
>> The type of the binding attribute is specified thus.
>>
>> Value binding expression that evaluates to an object that implements
>> javax.faces.event.ActionListener
>>
>> How would you make that handle a list?
>>
>> Sure, we could go and add a raft of new "bindingList" attributes to
all
>> of the attached object handlers in f:, but is it worth the complexity?
>>
>>
>> Ed
>> --
>> | edward.burns(a)oracle.com | office: +1 407 458 0017
>> | homepage: |
http://ridingthecrest.com/
>> | 9 work days until German Oracle User's Group Conference
>>
>
>
> --
>
>
http://www.irian.at
>
> Your JSF powerhouse -
> JSF Consulting, Development and
> Courses in English and German
>
> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
>
--
Jakob Korherr
blog:
http://www.jakobk.com
twitter:
http://twitter.com/jakobkorherr
work:
http://www.irian.at
Your JSF powerhouse -
JSF Consulting, Development and
Courses in English and German
Professional Support for Apache MyFaces