Hey Jim -
Jim Driscoll wrote On 5/26/2009 4:12 PM ET:
The switchlist example predates the naming change, going back to the
dark days when we were just doing simple substitution into the JS
function.
Ah, I had a feeling something like that happened. :-)
After thinking over this for a while, a lack of a real "parent" object
may not be a bad thing.
After all, we'll want to tell people not to make components that
invisibly modify the using page. If you want to modify the using
page, you should have to explicitly make the user say so, and mark the
id's to be changed, or else you're going to make stuff that's
impossible to maintain.
I agree - not a good idea to build components that make assumptions
about the surrounding page. Though #{cc.parent} does provide access
outside of the composite component - just not access to the immediate
parent - which is confusing. So, even though I am not a fan of the
practice, I think we would have been better off not modifying the
meaning of the "parent" property. But, little late for that observation.
Oh, btw... David - were you ever able to get the "preferred" solution
(passing the target id into your composite component) working?
Andy