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