Re: [jsr-314-open] #{compositeComponent.attrs....}
While perhaps it can be simplified to a shorter name, or one that
doesn't build off "compositeComponent", I feel strongly that all EL
should be given the opportunity to be specified explicitly. For
example: #{foo} vs. #{requestScope.foo} vs. #{sessionScope.foo}, vs.
#{compositeComponent.attrs.foo}. So, not only is there a performance
penalty for being a lazy developer and not being explicit (requiring a
search of all scopes until found), but there is also a name-space
problem. I also argue that it hurts readability of your code to not be
explicit. I discourage all implicit EL references -- IMO, it's simply
bad practice.
That said, we support implicit references (in addition to their explicit
alternatives) in many places, what's one more. :P
Ken
David Geary wrote:
Is it possible to dispense with having to type
"#compositeComponent.attrs." in the implementation sections of
composite components? It's cumbersome. Besides, Facelets custom tags
let you access attribute values with their simple names, for example
you could use a Facelets tag like this:
<mytags:planet name="mercury"
image="#{resource['images:Mercury.gif']}"/>
and in the implementation of the planet tag, you can do this:
<h:graphicImage style="border: none"
value="#{image}"/>
With a JSF composite component, you have to do
...value="#{compositeComponent.attrs.image}". Maybe I'm missing
something, but it doesn't seem to be too much of a technical feat to
remove the need to type compositeComponent.attrs (a variable resolver
that searches compositeComponents.attrs, as necessary?)
It seems weird that we're taking a step backwards in this respect,
even as we move forward from Facelets tags to more feature-rich
composite components.
david