filed issue and uploaded patch. http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ADFFACES-179
On 9/15/06, Arjuna Wijeyekoon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I really like the idea of testing for a null rendererType. My vote would be to just do that and add no public api. I think that the self-rendering component case is rare enough that we can ignore it for now (and as Adam points out PPR updating such a component will still work). If people scream we can always add an api later. If I don't hear otherwise, I'll file a JIRA issue and submit a patch for this. thanks Arjuna On 9/15/06, Adam Winer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > BTW, as far as the Trinidad components go, it's sufficient to > simply say "getRendererType() == null"... but that doesn't > account for self-rendered components. So, we might > also do the converse: say that getRendererType() == null > is what we use as a test, and if someone really needs a > self-rendered component to be a target, they can add a marker > interface to that component. > > So in theory, we could do this without any API additions. The > worst-case scenario is that a few self-rendered components > PPR their parents instead of themselves. > > -- Adam > > > On 9/15/06, Adam Winer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > >
