[jsr-314-open-mirror] [jsr-314-open] composite components: targets attribute revisited

[Jakob Korherr]

Hi guys,

Thanks, Andy! Frankly I also do not really like the term "insert"
here, because - as you said - it just does not fit that well. However
I really, really like "implements" - this is just soo much better :)

<h:commandButton ....>
    <cc:implementsActionSource name="myActionSource" />
</h:commandButton>

Really beautiful!

@Leonardo: I will open an issue for this on MyFaces tomorrow and
provide some patches for it asap!

Regards,
Jakob

2010/10/29 Andy Schwartz <andy.schwartz at oracle.com>:
> Hey Jakob -
>
> On 10/29/10 7:02 AM, Jakob Korherr wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Thinking more of it and trying out some prototypes, I now think
>> Leonardo's approach is the way to go. Of course, it would somehow be
>> possible to circumvent the problems mentioned before (like multiple
>> action listeners or the missing f: tag for client behaviors), but
>> after reading the vdldocs again, I think it's much more consistent
>> with what we have right now.
>>
>> Consider the current facet solution: The user can provide facets for
>> the composite component and the author of the composite component can
>> add them to implementation-components via cc:insertFacet.
>
> Agreed.  I like the consistency in this approach.
>
> BTW, and slightly off-topic: composite:insertFacet's "name" attribute
> suffers from the same problem as composite:attribute's "name" attribute: it
> is also used to refer to both the interface name as well as the
> implementation name.  See:
>
> https://javaserverfaces-spec-public.dev.java.net/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=631
>
> Interestingly, the recommended solution for this is to also add a
> "targetName" attribute. :-)
>
> (This is a slightly different case, since composite:insertFacet lives in the
> implementation section.)
>
>>  And this is
>> exactly what we need for cc:actionSource, cc:valueHolder,
>> cc:editableValueHolder and cc:clientBehavior.
>>
>> Thus I would propose the following new tags (from Leonardo's original
>> proposal):
>>
>> <cc:insertActionSource name="XXX" />
>> <cc:insertEditableValueHolder name="XXX"/>
>> <cc:insertValueHolder name="XXX" />
>> <cc:insertClientBehavior name="XXX" />
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>
> I like it. :-)  Though I wonder whether "insert" is the right verb to
> describe what this tag is doing.  In the <cc:insertFacet> case, we literally
> are inserting a facet component into the component tree.  In the
> <cc:insertActionSource> case - we aren't really inserting an action source.
>  The action source is already present: it is the parent of the
> <cc:insertActionSource> tag.  It seems like the purpose of the
> <cc:insertActionSource> tag is to identify that the parent action source
> component provides the implementation of the action source that is
> identified in the interface section.  Perhaps the verb "implements" captures
> this better than "insert"?
>
>
>  <composite:interface>
>   <composite:actionSource name="loginButton"/>
>  </composite:interface>
>
>  <composite:implementation>
>   <h:commandButton>
>     <composite:implementsActionSource name="loginButton"/>
>   </h:commandButton>
>  </composite:implementation>
>
> In any case, regardless of the tag name, I think that this is a much
> improved approach.  Thanks for pushing this Jakob (and Leonardo, Martin and
> Ganesh too)!
>
> Andy
>
>> Regards,
>> Jakob
>>
>>
>
>



-- 
Jakob Korherr

blog: http://www.jakobk.com
twitter: http://twitter.com/jakobkorherr
work: http://www.irian.at