Re: [jsr-314-open-mirror] [jsr-314-open] [755-cc:attributesSpecialKeys]

LU> I agree with you, just note as it was mentioned before we still need to do something LU> to allow multiple action attributes for a single composite component, as reported here: LU> LU> https://javaserverfaces-spec-public.dev.java.net/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=859 LU> LU> The idea of introduce cc:attribute "targetName" sounds good. In theory with this attribute LU> we don't need add method-signature, because it can be inferred from the value of targetName. LU> In the example posted by me, since the attribute name is "action", the method-signature LU> is not required. LU> LU> regards, LU> LU> Leonardo Uribe Wouldn't your patch for https://javaserverfaces-spec-public.dev.java.net/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7... working with other action attribute names? E.g. <cc:interface> <cc:attribute name="testAction"/> <cc:attribute name="label"/> </cc:interface> <cc:implementation> <h:commandButton value="#{cc.attrs.label}" action="#{cc.attrs.testAction}"/> </cc:implementation> or even <cc:interface> <cc:attribute name="testAction1"/> <cc:attribute name="testAction2"/> <cc:attribute name="label"/> </cc:interface> <cc:implementation> <ez:button value="#{cc.attrs.label}" action="#{cc.attrs.testAction1}"/> <h:commandButton value="#{cc.attrs.label}" action="#{cc.attrs.testAction2}"/> </cc:implementation> is what developers expect to work. If it's necessary for the implementation they will accept a method-signature. I don't like te idea of introducing one more obscure target family attribute like targetName. Instead I'd prefer to try and make targets obsolete.

Best regards, Ganesh