11:02 a.m.
>>>> On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 18:16:41 -0400, Dan Allen
<dan.j.allen(a)gmail.com> said:
LB> I already got mail by Kin-Man - he said this won't be included, we
LB> are too late.
DA> I don't get it. Why are JSR-299 and JSR-330 allowed to change so
DA> drastically before Java EE 6, yet we need one small change in EL and
DA> it can't happen. This is crap. If we all agree this change would be
DA> valuable, I want to see it included. Whose arm do we have to twist?
Think of it this way. There is a finite amount of change that Sun, as
platform spec lead for Java EE 6 is willing to accept. JSR-299 and
JSR-330 have consumed all of that finite amount! Perhaps if things
were more stable on the 299 and 330 fronts we'd have room for these
little changes. For now, we have no plans to produce another revision
of JSF 2.0 before Java EE 6 goes final.
Also, one must bear in mind the external economic and regulatory
considerations that come into play when allocating resources in any
corporate entity.
Ed
--
| ed.burns(a)sun.com | office: 408 884 9519 OR x31640
| homepage: | http://ridingthecrest.com/
10:50 p.m.
New subject: [jsr-314-open] <h:dataTable> binding vs. ui:repeat
FYI -- a sneak peek. This is working -- with seam el in this example, of
course.
Comment now "or forever hold your peace unless it needs to be
changed" ;)
<a:editText value="#{viewProjectBean.project.vision}"
rendered="#{authorizationBean.isOwner}" >
<f:valueChangeListener for="value"
action="#{viewProjectBean.test('foo')}" />
<f:actionListener for="submit"
binding="#{viewProjectBean.projectChangeListener}" />
<f:converter for="output" converterId="webLinkConverter"/>
</a:editText>
--Lincoln
--
Lincoln Baxter, III
Co-Founder of OcpSoft
Author of PrettyFaces URL Rewriting for JSF
2:23 p.m.
New subject: [jsr-314-open] <h:dataTable> binding vs. ui:repeat
Hi Ken -
Ken Paulsen wrote:
This comment may be way too late... but I would rather have seen (and
thought I did see) us go in the direction:
<f:event type="valueChange" action="#{...}" />
I do remember some discussion of providing component system events for
events that are currently handled via FacesEvents (valueChange, action),
but I guess we never reached a resolution on this. If we were to add
such system events, are you thinking that these should replace the
existing FacesEvents (ValueChangeEvent, ActionEvent)? Or would the new
system events simply complement the corresponding FacesEvents?
Andy
This reduces tag explosion, is easy to extend, and makes it simple for
add-on frameworks to leverage an event model (vs. lots of 1-off tags
for different tasks).
If this is indeed way too late, or I'm misinterpreting this... please
disregard. ;)
Cheers!
Ken
Lincoln Baxter, III wrote:
> FYI -- a sneak peek. This is working -- with seam el in this example,
> of course.
>
> Comment now "or forever hold your peace unless it needs to be
> changed" ;)
>
>
> <a:editText value="#{viewProjectBean.project.vision}"
> rendered="#{authorizationBean.isOwner}" >
>
> *<f:valueChangeListener for="value"
> action="#{viewProjectBean.test('foo')}" />*
>
> <f:actionListener for="submit"
> binding="#{viewProjectBean.projectChangeListener}" />
> <f:converter for="output"
converterId="webLinkConverter"/>
> </a:editText>
>
>
>
> --Lincoln
>
> --
> *Lincoln Baxter, III*
> Co-Founder of OcpSoft <http://ocpsoft.com>
> Author of PrettyFaces <http://ocpsoft.com/prettyfaces> URL Rewriting
> for JSF
>
>
2:30 p.m.
New subject: [jsr-314-open] <h:dataTable> binding vs. ui:repeat
I didn't want to go that route because it wouldn't have used the existing tags
designed for actionlistening and etc, therby introducing another thing people would have
to learn, whereas this sort of silently/naturally extends the existing tags.
I don't see any reason why we couldn't, but ill leave that to others to discuss
since I'm not as familiar with f:event
Lincoln
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
-----Original Message-----
From: Andy Schwartz <andy.schwartz(a)oracle.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2009 15:23:28
To: <jsr-314-open(a)jcp.org>
Cc: <lincolnbaxter(a)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [jsr-314-open] <h:dataTable> binding vs. ui:repeat
Hi Ken -
Ken Paulsen wrote:
This comment may be way too late... but I would rather have seen (and
thought I did see) us go in the direction:
<f:event type="valueChange" action="#{...}" />
I do remember some discussion of providing component system events for
events that are currently handled via FacesEvents (valueChange, action),
but I guess we never reached a resolution on this. If we were to add
such system events, are you thinking that these should replace the
existing FacesEvents (ValueChangeEvent, ActionEvent)? Or would the new
system events simply complement the corresponding FacesEvents?
Andy
This reduces tag explosion, is easy to extend, and makes it simple for
add-on frameworks to leverage an event model (vs. lots of 1-off tags
for different tasks).
If this is indeed way too late, or I'm misinterpreting this... please
disregard. ;)
Cheers!
Ken
Lincoln Baxter, III wrote:
> FYI -- a sneak peek. This is working -- with seam el in this example,
> of course.
>
> Comment now "or forever hold your peace unless it needs to be
> changed" ;)
>
>
> <a:editText value="#{viewProjectBean.project.vision}"
> rendered="#{authorizationBean.isOwner}" >
>
> *<f:valueChangeListener for="value"
> action="#{viewProjectBean.test('foo')}" />*
>
> <f:actionListener for="submit"
> binding="#{viewProjectBean.projectChangeListener}" />
> <f:converter for="output"
converterId="webLinkConverter"/>
> </a:editText>
>
>
>
> --Lincoln
>
> --
> *Lincoln Baxter, III*
> Co-Founder of OcpSoft <http://ocpsoft.com>
> Author of PrettyFaces <http://ocpsoft.com/prettyfaces> URL Rewriting
> for JSF
>
>
2:41 p.m.
New subject: [jsr-314-open] <h:dataTable> binding vs. ui:repeat
lincolnbaxter(a)gmail.com wrote:
I didn't want to go that route because it wouldn't have used
the existing tags designed for actionlistening and etc, therby introducing another thing
people would have to learn, whereas this sort of silently/naturally extends the existing
tags.
Sure. What you are doing seems reasonable to me... I was asking more
just to understand Ken's perspective on where he envisions us going with
system events (and how this might relate to our FacesEvents).
Andy
2:40 p.m.
New subject: [jsr-314-open] <h:dataTable> binding vs. ui:repeat
Hi Andy,
In JSFT I leveraged the ValueChange, Action, etc. events to fire off
this type of event / eventlistener model. I then never used the legacy
ones directly b/c the unified way of defining and handling all events
was much simpler. So I guess my opinion is to register listeners for
any type of event in a generic way; legacy (hard-coded) events can
delegate to the generic event system for their impl. I would prefer not
to see many more new tags for the purpose of defining new events... they
all basically do the same thing w/ a different event name.
But, I'll be happy regardless of what happens. :)
Thanks everyone that has been contributing to JSF while I have been
bogged down for the last several months w/ less fun stuff (except for my
vacation to Peru... that was fun). :) I'm trying to be more active now....
Thanks!
Ken
Andy Schwartz wrote:
Hi Ken -
Ken Paulsen wrote:
>
> This comment may be way too late... but I would rather have seen (and
> thought I did see) us go in the direction:
>
> <f:event type="valueChange" action="#{...}" />
I do remember some discussion of providing component system events for
events that are currently handled via FacesEvents (valueChange,
action), but I guess we never reached a resolution on this. If we
were to add such system events, are you thinking that these should
replace the existing FacesEvents (ValueChangeEvent, ActionEvent)? Or
would the new system events simply complement the corresponding
FacesEvents?
Andy
>
> This reduces tag explosion, is easy to extend, and makes it simple
> for add-on frameworks to leverage an event model (vs. lots of 1-off
> tags for different tasks).
>
> If this is indeed way too late, or I'm misinterpreting this... please
> disregard. ;)
>
> Cheers!
>
> Ken
>
>
> Lincoln Baxter, III wrote:
>> FYI -- a sneak peek. This is working -- with seam el in this
>> example, of course.
>>
>> Comment now "or forever hold your peace unless it needs to be
>> changed" ;)
>>
>>
>> <a:editText value="#{viewProjectBean.project.vision}"
>> rendered="#{authorizationBean.isOwner}" >
>>
>> *<f:valueChangeListener for="value"
>> action="#{viewProjectBean.test('foo')}" />*
>>
>> <f:actionListener for="submit"
>> binding="#{viewProjectBean.projectChangeListener}" />
>> <f:converter for="output"
converterId="webLinkConverter"/>
>> </a:editText>
>>
>>
>>
>> --Lincoln
>>
>> --
>> *Lincoln Baxter, III*
>> Co-Founder of OcpSoft <http://ocpsoft.com>
>> Author of PrettyFaces <http://ocpsoft.com/prettyfaces> URL Rewriting
>> for JSF
>>
>>
2:37 p.m.
New subject: [jsr-314-open] <h:dataTable> binding vs. ui:repeat
Lincoln Baxter, III wrote:
FYI -- a sneak peek. This is working -- with seam el in this example,
of course.
Comment now "or forever hold your peace unless it needs to be
changed" ;)
Hehe.
<a:editText value="#{viewProjectBean.project.vision}"
rendered="#{authorizationBean.isOwner}" >
*<f:valueChangeListener for="value"
action="#{viewProjectBean.test('foo')}" />*
We ended up going with "listener" as the attribute name for <f:event>,
though IIRC, both Dan and Pete preferred "action". While I don't know
that "listener" is the most brilliant name, personally I have always
thought of "action" having a special connotation - ie. actions are
triggered by command components and return outcomes that impact
navigation. Seeing an "action" attribute on a f:valueChangeListener
seems a bit awkward to me.
In terms of spec details, I think we need to clarify what the behavior
is when both "action" (or whatever we call it) and "type" are
specified.
Andy
<f:actionListener for="submit"
binding="#{viewProjectBean.projectChangeListener}" />
<f:converter for="output" converterId="webLinkConverter"/>
</a:editText>
--Lincoln
--
*Lincoln Baxter, III*
Co-Founder of OcpSoft <http://ocpsoft.com>
Author of PrettyFaces <http://ocpsoft.com/prettyfaces> URL Rewriting
for JSF
5593
days inactive
5594
days old
jsr-314-open-mirror@lists.jboss.org
7 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Andy Schwartz -
Ed Burns -
Ken Paulsen -
Lincoln Baxter, III -
lincolnbaxter＠gmail.com