[jsr-314-open-mirror] [jsr-314-open] [859-MultiActionComponent] RESOLVED (was: Re: Composite components only support one action) attribute (review of issue 859)

LU> https://javaserverfaces-spec-public.dev.java.net/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=859 LU> and then Ed Burns propose another similar one, but filling the gaps in LU> documentation and integration with automated tests (That's cool!). LU> Instead call it "methodType", it was proposed targetAttributeName and added LU> this LU> documentation: LU> "...This attribute allows the name of the attribute exposed to the using LU> page to differ from the one actually used in the implementation. For LU> example, consider a composite component that contains two buttons, one LU> that means "submit" and one that means "cancel". It is natural to want LU> to declare two composite component attributes to allow these buttons to LU> be customized, for example, "submitAction" and "cancelAction". For both LU> of these buttons, the method expression should be retargeted to the LU> inner button's "action" attribute. This scenario would be expressed as LU> follows..." LU> And the proposal using "targetAttributeName" looks like this: As Martin pointed out in a private email, method-signature is optional. So either of these are valid: <cc:interface> <cc:attribute name="submitAction" targetAttributeName="action" /> <cc:attribute name="cancelAction" targetAttributeName="action" /> </cc:interface> <cc:interface> <cc:attribute name="submitAction" targetAttributeName="action" method-signature="java.lang.Object action()" /> <cc:attribute name="cancelAction" targetAttributeName="action" method-signature="java.lang.Object action()" /> </cc:interface> LU> In my opinion, the syntax using "methodType" is preferred. In that one, we LU> are just LU> defining the attribute is used for the behavioral interface ActionSource, as LU> an "action", LU> and the method-signature declaration is not necessary anymore. I don't want to introduce the concept of type here. We already have the concepts of method-signature, MethodExpression, and special attribute names. Therefore, I'm going with targetAttributeName. Committed revision 8688. LU> Note that this syntax already works (partially) without the patch: LU> <cc:attribute name="submitAction" method-signature="java.lang.Object LU> action()"/> LU> I said "partially" because these two method signatures are valid for action: LU> java.lang.Object action() LU> void action() LU> The problem is more clear when "actionListener" is considered because it has LU> these two LU> valid signatures (since JSF 2): LU> void method(javax.faces.event.ActionEvent ) LU> void method() LU> It is not possible to map it using method-signature, because it only allows LU> one of them, but LU> if we use a notation like this: LU> <cc:attribute name="submitActionListener" methodType="actionListener"/> LU> The previous two signatures are assumed and problem solved. I still think LU> method-signature should allow multiple ones using ';', but before that (I LU> want to propose a LU> patch but not yet), I prefer the proposed patch using methodType. LU> Suggestions are welcome. LU> best regards, LU> Leonardo Uribe -- | edward.burns(a)oracle.com | office: +1 407 458 0017 | homepage: | http://ridingthecrest.com/ | 9 work days until German Oracle User's Group Conference