On 5/24/09 8:39 PM, David Geary wrote:
And that id is *exactly* what <f:ajax> says it cannot find. It's
in the
page, but <f:ajax> cannot find it?!?
My guess is that <f:ajax> is evaluating the id before the page is
completely constructed, and therefore, it doesn't find it, but that's
just a WAG on my part.
So, if this is not correct:
<f:ajax render="#{cc.parent.clientId}:image"/>
Then how do I access the image in the parent (map) component?
It seems to me that I'm using <f:ajax> correctly, but I'd be
happy to be
told otherwise.
It's late, but yes, that looks correct, and yes, your guess sounds
correct. Could you file this as an impl bug?
Okay. I'll send a WAR to Ryan, and see if we can get this fixed asap.
I'd like to get this working for my J1 demo.
Now, we do need to fix that as a bug, but I must argue that your use
case represents bad practice. Your component is using ajax inside a
component to modify the using page. That's difficult to maintain, and
I suspect it will lead to obfuscated code quite easily. I'd instead
argue that if you are going to have one component modify another, you
should either group them into one composite, or, have the ID of the
component you act upon passed in as an attribute (say "for="?)
Yup, I concur--too much coupling between parent and child components.
Unfortunately, I can't seem to pass the component ID to the child
component either. IOW, this doesn't work:
In parent component:
<places:mapZoomControl
componentToRender="#{cc.clientId}:image"/>
And in mapZoomControl.xhtml:
<composite:attribute name="componentToRender"/>
...
<f:ajax render="#{cc.attrs.componentToRender}"/>
I suppose it's not surprising that the preceeding doesn't work--it
looks like a manifestation of the same bug. I'll give Ryan a buzz.
Thanks,
david
Of course, that second usage suggestion opens up another hole in the cc
api - the lack of ability to do name resolution. Though if/when we get
method parameters, then cc.findComponent will work, I guess. Though
I've been saying that for a pretty long time now, I should check on
when we're getting those method params...
Jim