On 2/25/07, Renzo Tomaselli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thanks Adam. This explanation leads to another question - somewhat obvious: I never saw any component description stating which is a naming container and which is not. Neither for Tomahawk or for Trinidad or for JSF base components. What is the rationale behind this ?
Do you mean, "What is the rationale behind not having any description?" or "What is the rationale behind making something a naming container or not?" -- Adam
-- Renzo Adam Winer wrote: > tr:form is not a naming container - while h:form is. > For people developing new pages, this is a big > advantage (far easier than setting forceId everywhere). > > If you want to preserve this old JS, then just use: > > <tr:form> > <f:subview id = "browser"> > ... > </f:subview> > </tr:form> > > -- Adam > > > On 2/23/07, Renzo Tomaselli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Hi, in a page of mine I replaced a f:form by a tr:form, because of the >> well known issue with Tomahawk jscookmenu missing a hidden field. >> As a side effect - I noticed a change concerning the way nested >> identifiers are generated. >> If I put: >> >> <f:form id = "browser"> >> <tr:commandButton id="double" ... >> >> then the generated if for this button is "browser:double". >> If I replace the form tag by: >> >> <tr:form id = "browser"> >> >> then the generated button id is simply "browser". >> Needlessy to say, this harmless replacement invalidates an entire bunch >> of js code, expecting the combined ids. >> Is nesting parameter-driven anywhere ? Any comment ? >> Thanks -- Renzo >> > >
