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

[Ganesh]

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=755 include 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