Hello Simon,
I have also almost completed implementing the TrainRenderer using the new skin
selectors. It's great to know you are done as well. If you plan to check in the
train renderer code anytime soon, can we agree on the common list of skin
selectors, so that I can reuse them for my work internally at Oracle? I had to
make the following changes and wanted to give you an update.
1. I had to introduce a new state called "read-only". This is different from
"disabled" state, like I explained in a previous email.
2. I removed some redundant skin hooks - I can send you the updated list of
selectors I am using. I also couldn't get the "pass-through states" :visited,
:active and :unvisited to work, just as you. So I have temporarily defined
selectors like Jeanne suggested (using p_AFVisited, p_AFUnvisited etc. and
renamed :active to :selected).
3. Finally I have simplified the rules for determining the state of joins. I
figured it would be much simpler if we did the following. The join to the left
of a stop, is 'always in the same state as the stop' (Overflows could also
follow the same rules as stops). So for instance for a train like
V ----- VR ----- UV ----- A ----- D ----- UVR ----- V
vr uv v d uvr v
NOTE: The only exception, is the join to the left of an active stop is visited.
Also, UVR and VR are stops that are in 2 states simulataneously - 'visited &
read-only' and 'unvisited & read-only'. Read-only implies the stop cannot be
reached (and hence not clickable) and is dictated by the 'readOnly' property on
the component commandNavigationItem.
Please let me know if the above is ok.
Thanks
- Pavitra
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simon Lessard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 11:43 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Train selectors
>
> Hmmm you mean somthing like af|train::stop.p_AFVisited?
>
> On 8/28/06, Jeanne Waldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I was thinking :selected for :active. :selected could be used for
> > other components, too.
> > For :visited/:unvisited, I can't think of a better name.
> I'm thinking
> > that we should use .p_AFVisited, .P_AFUnvisited until we have the
> > pseudo-class support in. These wouldn't in a public api
> format, though.
> >
> > - Jeanne
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > >Hello,
> > >
> > >I thought about the following name changes for the selectors:
> > >
> > >:active --> :current or :selected
> > >:visited/:unvisited --> :completed/:uncompleted or :seen/:unseen
> > >
> > >
> > >Do you have any other idea/preference?
> > >
> > >
> > >Regards,
> > >
> > >~ Simon
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >"Simon Lessard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >2006-08-25 22:49
> > >Please respond to adffaces-dev
> > >
> > > To: "Trinidad - Dev"
> <[email protected]>
> > > cc:
> > > Subject: Train selectors
> > >
> > >
> > >Yes... again...
> > >
> > >I made a new renderer and it work quite well, but I had to use
> > >:ora-visited and :ora-active for some selectors because those are
> > >"pass through"
> > >values.
> > >Anyone have better name suggestion while we implement state
> > >interception on a per component basis?
> > >
> > >
> > >Regards,
> > >
> > >~ Simon
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
