Somewhere the individual "learned" that "input" meant an input component. All that's being suggested is that we also have people learn that "select" is also an input component.
This appears to already be the case in general JSF nomenclature, but until Simon's post, I never saw any explanation of the difference between select and input. If MyFaces/Tomahawk/Trinidad/Tobago start using these naming conventions (the basic JSF components already are doing so), I don't think it's a big deal that the input section and the select section are in different spots on the component list. You could always go with "inputSelect" for both if the "selectInput" prefix is the only problem. On 7/12/06, Adam Winer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/12/06, Mike Kienenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 7/12/06, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I've gotten a decent bit of feedback in the past that people > > > just couldn't find selectInputDate or selectInputColor, but > > > if they'd been called inputDate or inputColor, they would have > > > been found. > > > > yes, that is true for me, to be honest . > > On the other hand, if someone explains up-front in the component table > of contents that "input" meant unassisted entry and "select" meant > assisted entry, and "inputSelect" means both, I could have figured > this out. ... but as "selectInputDate", anyone looking alphabetically is just totally lost. One of the goals of the renaming is to minimize any need for up-front explanation; the best name is one that requires no documentation. -- Adam
