I like this too. A JIRA issue would be fine, but we should pick the name for the marker interface here. In addition to Arjuna's ideas, maybe: NoMarkupComponent, LogicOnlyComponent?
-- Adam On 9/14/06, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Arjuna, I like the idea of having a marker for those non-rendering-components and enhancing RequestContext's addPartialTarget() logic for the tree walk. Can you nail this issue / improvement to jira, that it doesn't get lost? -Matthias On 9/15/06, Arjuna Wijeyekoon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi,. > > Some components, like switcher and iterator, do not (or need not) render any > content themselves. > This causes problems when you try to add that component as a partial target, > eg: > > RequestScope.getCurrentInstance().addPartialTarget(switcher); > > It would be nice if the addPartialTarget method could detect that the > component does not render any content, walk up the tree and find the closest > ancestor that does render content and add that component as the partial > target. > > In order to do that, there should be a way for a component to identify > itself as being a no-chrome component. This way, switcher and iterator and > other 3rd party components can be added as partialTargets and things will > just magically work. > > This new interface could be called NonRenderingComponent, > NoChromeComponent, NoContentComponent. > (Alternatively, rather than use an interface, we could use a class > annotation; although I am not sure of any particular advantage of > annotations over interfaces. I will read up on that.) > > > Additionally, the framework could enforce that a component marked with such > an interface does infact render nothing. > > thoughts? > > --Arjuna > > -- Matthias Wessendorf further stuff: blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
