patch applyed
On 9/18/06, Arjuna Wijeyekoon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
further stuff:
blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
