Hi Ed,
again very late, I filed:
https://uel.dev.java.net/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6
on this.
regards,
Martin
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 10:31 PM, Ed Burns <Ed.Burns(a)sun.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 08:08:31 +0200, Martin
Marinschek <mmarinschek(a)apache.org> said:
MM> Hi Ed,
>> Which I still don't understand. Can you please explain explicitly?
MM> I sent a mail to Kin-Man that we can't pass parameters from the
MM> framework to the method-expression. So, we can now do:
MM> #{bb.action(myparam)}
MM> to call a method with signature:
MM> public String action(String myparam) {}
MM> but we can not do:
MM> #{bb.valueChangeListener(myparam)}
MM> to call a method with signature:
MM> public void valueChangeListener(ValueChangeEvent ev, String myparam) {}
MM> only with signature:
MM> public void valueChangeListener(String myparam) {}
MM> so what we loose is the ValueChangeEvent, which was provided by the
MM> JSF framework as a parameter to the invoke-call in the
MM> Method-Expression instance (we will only receive the parsed
MM> parameters).
Thanks. Now I understand your request.
MM> I already got mail by Kin-Man - he said this won't be included, we
MM> are too late.
MM> This effectively means we cannot use the new EL functionality to solve
MM> the problem that was discussed in this thread (using
MM> valueChangeListeners in a dataTable), and therefore, even though we
MM> can get rid of the f:setPropertyActionListener, we would still need an
MM> f:setPropertyValueChangeListener - a pity.
I agree that the feature you request is indeed valid. Can you please
file it in the
uel.dev.java.net issue tracker?
Ed
--
| ed.burns(a)sun.com | office: 408 884 9519 OR x31640
| homepage: |
http://ridingthecrest.com/
--
http://www.irian.at
Your JSF powerhouse -
JSF Consulting, Development and
Courses in English and German
Professional Support for Apache MyFaces