Frank,
I think the best way to implement this is to have a Map<String, Boolean>
that handles this transformation for you, so you can say:
disabled="#{userInRole['manager']}"
This sort of bean should be exposed out-of-the-box (would be
nice if it in were in the JSF standard, but easy enough to write
on your own).
Some problems with creating bonus properties are that you:
(A) Have to remember to add them to all components
(B) Have to expose multiple properties, one for everything that
might be affected - rendered, readonly, disabled.
(C) Aren't helped if you need to bind some other attribute (what
if you wanted a different styleClass depending on the role?)
(D) Aren't helped if you're not using only the absolute standard
user-in-role mechanism - no, one size *does not* fit all
(E) Impose performance overhead on *all* components, even
those that don't need the attribute, since you have to get
the property and check it no matter what
These are, more-or-less, the same reasons why I argued fiercely
against adding "bundle" properties for translation and in favor
of using EL for that purpose - a decision I'm convinced has been
proven correct.
-- Adam
On 8/8/06, Frank Nimphius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Adam,
EL doesn't allow arguments in which case isUserInRole() checking
requires the developer to create a managed bean first to then provide
boolean return values. Though not reflected in the JSF spec, I think
that providing out-of-the box security always is a benefit. At least
this way you can ensure it is implemented the est way possible. However,
this goes beyond implementing security on a single UI Component only but
requires security to be enabled on the JSF engine.
Just my 2 cents on it
Frank
Adam Winer wrote:
> There has not been a decision on adding either role checking
> or force ID to Trinidad.
>
> My personal starting position is that I'd be -1 on adding
> either. Role checking is better accomplished via setting
> EL on disabled and readOnly, and force ID is unnecessary
> in JSF 1.2 with h:form prependId="false" (and the
> removal of requirements for using f:subview).
>
> -- Adam
>
>
> On 8/7/06, Baker,Jonathan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> I believe that I read somewhere that while in incubation the important
>> attributes of tomahawk (forceid, role checking) would be added to the
>> trinidad components. Unfortunately I cannot remember or find where I
>> read that statement. I wanted to verify with the list that this is
>> true. Will trinidad and tomahawk eventually be merged into one set of
>> components that support the skinning and things of ADF, but also support
>> the forceid, and role checking of tomahawk.
>>
>> JB
>>
>>
>>
>
--
________________________________
Frank Nimphius
Principal Product Manager
Application Development Tools
Oracle Corporation
mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
phone:+49 2058 782481
