[jsr-314-open] [293-Ajax] REOPEN rename <f:ajax> to <f:clientBehavior>?

[Pete Muir]

When Ed spoke to me about this, my opinion was that it should not be  
renamed - my additional argument to Ed's below was that if I am doing  
a talk or training that people will get without explanation that  
f:ajax means adding Ajax support, but I would have to explain  
f:clientBehaviour - in other words, first impressions matter.

On 23 Apr 2009, at 13:17, Andy Schwartz wrote:

> Hi Ed -
>
> I can see the argument that we should provide a generic  
> <f:clientBehavior> that plays the same role that <f:converter> and  
> <f:validator> play for Converters and Validators - ie. allows the  
> page author to attach an arbitrary attached object instance by id/ 
> binding.  (I kind of thought that we might have provided this  
> already, but looking at the release candidate 2 PFD tag docs, I do  
> not see this.)  However, I do not see <f:clientBehavior> as as a  
> replacement for <f:ajax>, but an addition to our tag API.  Since  
> such an addition would make the Behavior API more consistent with  
> our Converter/Validator APIs - something we've been striving for  
> from the start of the Behavior API design process - I would be happy  
> to see this go in.
>
> I am very much opposed, however, to removing the <f:ajax> tag in  
> favor of a generic <f:clientBehavior> tag, for the same reasons that  
> I would be opposed to removing, say, <f:convertNumber> in favor of  
> the generic <f:converter> tag.
>
> Andy
>
> Ed Burns wrote On 4/23/2009 4:43 AM ET:
>> I am opening the 2.0 door a crack to consider this one renaming  
>> change.
>> Don't expect that I'll let other things through.
>>
>> Several people have suggested renaming f:ajax to f:clientBehavior.   
>> Here
>> are some arguments for and against renaming.
>>
>> Arguments for renaming
>>
>> * more correct.  The attached object is a clientBehavior
>>
>> * it's possible and likely to use the tag for non-ajax things
>>
>> * this is the 20% case
>>
>> Arguments against renaming
>>
>> * most users will be using the tag for Ajax
>>
>> * IDE autocomplete is important to consider.  Many new users rely
>>  heavily on this feature and if we don't have an ajax tag, we force
>>  them to look at the docs.  Autocomplete junkies hate that.
>>
>> * this is the 80% case
>>
>> My opinion is not to rename, but Pete, Martin and I have different
>> thoughts on this so I'll bring it to the EG.
>>
>> Ed
>>

--
Pete Muir
http://www.seamframework.org
http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Pete