I agree that only the renderers should know what states they want to
intercept. I was thinking we add this information in the renderer .xml
file and then when we build our classes, we can put this information
somewhere -- not sure where.
I'm sure you realize this, but just in case... the states do not have to
go on the root dom element, they can go on sub-root elements, like
af|train::stop:disabled.
Simon Lessard wrote:
> Hmmm, I'm leaning toward the per component basis option more and more.
> However, I hate static lists and additional config files are not all
that
> great. I see a possibility though. Maybe it will work, but I did not
> explore
> that area much yet so I might say something stupid. Currently it seem
> to me
> that skins are linked to the renderkit. So, how feasible would it
be to
> create a SkinRenderKitFactory that would, before giving away any
> renderer,
> would populate a Map<component, list<state>> be interrogating all
> renderers
> in the kit. That way, when StyleSheetRenderer would do its work, we
> would be
> sure that the list is populated. Also, with that solution, only the
> renderers would have to know what states they want to intercept. This
> also
> fix the synchronization issue, changing the kit or the renderer would
> automatically update the interception list. We would have to create a
new
> BaseRenderer in the API however. I see two additional methods
needed for
> such renderers:
>
> public String getComponentName() // or I guess getRootStyleClass would
> work
> just as well
> public List<String> getInterceptedStates(); // Returning the list of
> states
> to intercept.
>
>
> Makes sense?
>
> ~ Simon
>
> On 8/21/06, Jeanne Waldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>> More comments inline.
>> Which way are you leaning?
>>
>> - Jeanne
>>
>> Simon Lessard wrote:
>>
>> > Hello Jeanne,
>> >
>> > Thanks for the complete answer.
>> >
>> > On 8/21/06, Jeanne Waldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Hi Simon,
>> >> Thanks for the email.
>> >>
>> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >>We use both syntaxes, and they mean different things.
>> >> >>For example:
>> >> >>af|train::stop:disabled (when this train's stop is disabled,
then
>> >> style
>> >> >>the stop like this)
>> >> >>af|train:disabled::stop (when the entire train is disabled,
>> style all
>> >> >>the stops like this)
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >Agreed.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >>Let's say I have this: <span class="myText">Hello!</span> and
this
>> >> css:
>> >> >>.myText {color: black}
>> >> >>.myText:hover {color:red}
>> >> >>Does this work? (not in my tests)
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >It works in Firefox, not IE, as usual. W3C specifies that :hover
>> should
>> >> >work with everything, but it's not like all browsers will support
>> >> >everything W3C says anytime soon. Maybe we should intercept all
>> >> >pseudo-classes, if it can be resolved on Java side (like
:disabled),
>> we
>> >> >resolve it there and it never pass through so we prevent all bad
>> >> support
>> >> >from the browser. For states that cannot be resolved in Java, we
>> could
>> >> ask
>> >> >the Agent if it supports the specified pseudo-class for the
>> generated
>> >> >element (link:hover works in IE, but not on anything else). If
the
>> >> agent
>> >> >supports it, we let the class pass through to the generated CSS
>> >> file, if
>> >> >the agent does not, then we could add some JS code to emulate it.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> We generate the css file before we render the components, so when
you
>> >> say we should intercept all pseudo-classes and if it can be
>> resolved on
>> >> the Java side, we should resolve it. But how would we know at this
>> point
>> >> where we are going to render the pseudo-class? that af|foo:hover
will
>> be
>> >> generated on a link? Maybe af|foo:hover is on a <span>, but
>> >> af|foo::step:hover is on the link. (we would know if we kept the
>> >> skinning-key -> pseudo-class to resolve map). Or do you mean
>> literally
>> >> that if we can resolve it on the Java side -- even if the browser
can
>> as
>> >> well -- we go ahead and do that?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I mean litterally that we make a list of pseudo-classes that we
know
>> > we can
>> > always resolve during rendering, like :disabled, and always
intercept
>> > it. In
>> > a sense it would be a way to cover browsers' lack of support for
those
>> > pseudo-classes.
>> >
>> > In the case of :hover, do we pass that through for IE or not? Let's
>> say
>> >
>> >> we don't pass it through for IE. Then we'll need some code that
gets
>> >> :hover and says, oh, we are on IE, so don't pass this through but
>> >> instead do some onmouseover + css magic. This seems like it could
get
>> >> messy fast.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Fair point, the renderers would have to check if there's a selector
>> using
>> > :hover defined in the current skin and add some JS, it's messy
indeed.
>> >
>> >> The main problem I have the "per component" option is the
potential
>> >> >performance overhaul it represents as well as the increased
>> component
>> >> >development complexity (since you have to put more information in
>> the
>> >> >metadata).
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> I don't think of this as a performance hit, since this will happen
at
>> >> the css generation time, not with every renderer. And we cache the
>> >> generated css file.
>> >> It would be like the map I have now in FileSystemStyleCache.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Small question here. When is the CSS generated exactly? Is it at
>> > startup or
>> > at the first request for a given skin family? If it is during
startup,
>> > the
>> > performance hit is indeed a non issue.
>>
>> rendered in StyleSheetRenderer. We get it out of the cache if it is
>> there, otherwise we generate it.
>>
>> >
>> > However, we would need to keep the renderer and this map in sync.
>> For my
>> >
>> >> renderer 'foo', I know that I want to handle 'hover' myself, so I
put
>> >> the hover -> p_AFHover in the map that will be consulted when we
>> >> generate the css file. af|foo:hover does not pass through. All
other
>> >> :hover passes through. I don't think this is that terrible. I like
>> this
>> >> better than the prefix, because if, down the line, we decide
that we
>> can
>> >> pass through the pseudo-class, the user's skin will not have to
>> change,
>> >> but our code will get simpler.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Not that bad, but I kind of dislike hard coded lists as component
>> > developers
>> > won't be able to use the skinning feature without giving it to
>> Trinidad
>> > project since they will have to hack Trinidad's jar file to add
their
>> own
>> > states to the map. If that way is chosen, I would rather use
another
>> > configuration file or some faces-config meta-data entries. For now
>> > skin is
>> > not a public API, but I'm prety sure it will become one at some
>> point in
>> > time.
>>
>> We definitely need to get it out of FileSystemStyleCache. No doubt
about
>> it.
>>
>> >
>> >> The prefix is ok, but I find it a bit counter intuitive since the
>> >> user has
>> >> >to know which states will be handled by browser and which are
>> >> managed by
>> >> >Trinidad. I would prefer to hide that kind of low level
>> implementation
>> >> >details to skinners.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> We would definitely document all the -tri- pseudo-classes per
>> skinning
>> >> key. For example:
>> >> af|inputText:-tri-required, af|inputText:-tri-read-only,
>> >> af|inputText:-tri-disabled. But for af|train::stop-link,
>> >> we'd document that they can use :hover.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > It works, but it's a bit ugly imho. Furthermore, as you pointed
out,
>> such
>> > solution would force skin CSS changes if we beside to let any given
>> state
>> > pass through in the future.
>>
>> true.
>>
>> >
>> >> On a side note that could lead to a new post, what should we do
with
>> >> >icons? Currently the engine considers a selector an icon one
if it
>> ends
>> >> >with -icon. This lead to some strange selectors sometimes like
>> >> >-icon-style-class simply to prevent the parser to interpret it as
an
>> >> icon.
>> >> >Maybe we should add something like :::icon, ::tri-icon or --icon?
>> That
>> >> way
>> >> >there will be no ambiguity left.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> I don't have a problem with saying -icon-style when what you
mean is
>> >> that you want to style the icon, and ending the key with -icon
>> when it
>> >> means an icon.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > It's not that bad, true, but do we have a doc somewhere to document
>> this
>> > kind of skinning rules? If not, should I add a wiki entry for it
even
>> > if the
>> > API is not public yet? Other things interesting I see are
>> FileSystemCache
>> > and the mandatory "af" namespace.
>>
>> We don't have a skinning document for Trinidad developers (as opposed
to
>> application developers using Trinidad).
>> Starting a wiki would be great. I can populate it with some
information
>> I have.
>>
>> Yeah, the namespace is purely to make it so that the skinner knows
there
>> are Trinidad keys.
>> We need to change these to tr for one thing. The code might be a
little
>> bit hardcoded to use 'af', so that will need to change.
>> We don't honor the actual namespace in that you can't add
@namespace to
>> the top of the css file and then be able to use
>> whatever prefix you want. That was very low priority when I was doing
>> the skinning, and I'm not so sure we'd want to do that
>> anyway, becuase what would we do, substitute the namespace for the
>> prefix? Then our css would be huge. :) Maybe some day the
>> browsers would work with the @namespace, and when that happens we can
>> render it out to our css.
>>
>> >
>> > - Jeanne
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >Regards
>> >> >
>> >> >¬ Simon
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Jeanne Waldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >
>> >> >2006-08-18 18:27
>> >> >Please respond to adffaces-dev
>> >> >
>> >> > To: [email protected]
>> >> > cc:
>> >> > Subject: Re: ADFFACES-49
>> inputText::content:required or
>> >> >inputText:required::content
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >see inline for some random thoughts. :) I'm glad you brought
>> this up,
>> >> >because I need to come up with a solution soon for our internal
>> project
>> >> >that we are working on so that our developers can write their
>> renderers
>> >> >correctly.
>> >> >
>> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >>Hello all,
>> >> >>
>> >> >>I raised that issue a while back, but now it's a bit more
important
>> >> since
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >>I'm trying to finalize ADFFACES-49 issue. What selector
synthax do
>> you
>> >> >>prefer for states:
>> >> >>1.1. <component>::<subPart>:<state>
>> >> >>1.2. <component>:<state>::<subPart>.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >We use both syntaxes, and they mean different things.
>> >> >
>> >> >1.1 means this: The subPart of the component is in this state.
>> >> >For example:
>> >> >af|train::stop:disabled (when this train's stop is disabled, then
>> style
>> >> >the stop like this)
>> >> >af|train:disabled::stop (when the entire train is disabled, style
>> all
>> >> >the stops like this)
>> >> >
>> >> >1.2 means this: The component is in this state, and this is the
>> >> subpart.
>> >> >For example:
>> >> >af|inputText:disabled::content (when the af:inputText
>> disabled="true",
>> >> >then style the content piece like this)
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >>I prefer the former and it's easier to implement. However, we
>> already
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >have
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >>some :disabled that use the latter synthax.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Secondly, there's also the issue raised by Jeanne, how should we
>> >> manage
>> >> >>which states are intercepted and which should pass through
and be
>> >> copied
>> >> >>in the final CSS:
>> >> >>2.1. Use a component specific list, so that :disabled could pass
>> >> through
>> >>
>> >> >>for some components but get intercepted for some others? If that
>> >> solution
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >>is selected, how/where should we configure that list, in the
>> >> >>faces-config's metadata?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >I like this one the best because let's say I use :disabled and I
>> >> >intercept it and do some funky things with it. Then let's say I
>> decide
>> >> >that the css spec deals
>> >> >with :disabled perfectly fine, and I don't need to intercept it.
>> >> >Also, let's say :hover and :active work great on some dom
elements,
>> but
>> >> >do they work for everything?
>> >> >Let's say I have this: <span class="myText">Hello!</span> and
this
>> css:
>> >> >.myText {color: black}
>> >> >.myText:hover {color:red}
>> >> >Does this work? (not in my tests)
>> >> >
>> >> >But what if this represents a component. I might want them to be
>> >> able to
>> >> >specify .myText:hover and have it work even if the built-in
browser
>> >> >support wasn't there.
>> >> >So I would want
>> >> >af|myComponent:hover to work.
>> >> >I'd render this
>> >> ><span class="af_myComponent p_AFHover">Hello!</span>
>> >> >when they are hovering over my span.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >>2.2. Use a list of pseudo-classes passing through for all
>> components.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >Such
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >>list would have to be based on W3C, but as Jeanne observed, such
>> list
>> >> >>would break our :disabled that we're intercepting currently and
>> could
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >lead
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >>to som.e problems if more pseudo-classes are added in future
>> >> version of
>> >> >>CSS.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >Yes, I'd have to change the name of :disabled. But so far that is
>> the
>> >> >only css valid pseudo-class that I use to date.
>> >> >We have others like :hover (see above... if we don't want this to
>> pass
>> >> >through, we'll need to change it to something else).
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >>2.3. Use a static list of pseudo-classes to intercept used by
all
>> >> >>components? If so, where should we place it? This solution
probably
>> >> has
>> >> >>the same flaws as 2.2 if a new pseudo-classes i nthe CSS
>> specification
>> >> >>matches a name defined in the intercept list.
>> >> >>2.4. Use a prefix for intercepted pseudo-classes like the -ora-
>> >> used for
>> >>
>> >> >>properties?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >I like this second best. If we did this, then I'd suggest that we
>> also
>> >> >prefix the pseudo-elements.
>> >> >The problem is, taking my :hover example, some components
might be
>> >> >rendered such that the browser
>> >> >automatically works with :hover on the generated css, but others
>> don't,
>> >> >so those that don't have to have
>> >> >:-tri-hover ?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >>My votes are:
>> >> >>+1 for 1.1
>> >> >>+1 for 2.2, but I would not place states resolvable during
>> >> rendering in
>> >> >>that list, so that disabled is still intercepted.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>
