Hi 2010/10/28 Ed Burns <edward.burns(a)oracle.com&gt; > >>>>> On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 12:17:12 -0500, Leonardo Uribe > >>>>> <lu4242(a)gmail.com&gt; > said: > > 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> > > Ok, I did a checkout and the example is there. > 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. > > > Ok, now I understand the intention. Yes, it sound good. Thanks Ed for take a look to this issue. best regards, Leonardo Uribe > > > > 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 >