On 12/19/06, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just out of curiousity, where did they add "it"? I don't see any reference > to updateActionListener in 1.2. it is named setPropertyActionListener in the spec and in trinidad setActinListener
Thanks ... I had not recalled that from when I last did a detailed review of all the 1.2 changes. Hmm, between that and <f:valueChangeListener>, JSF has a pretty good analog to the "Beans Binding" JSR for Swing (JSR-296) :-), but only if you're using JSP :-(. I presume that the alternative view handlers like Clay and Facelets will deal with that issue on their own. -M Craig
By the way, is this similar to (or identical to) your idea for a preupdate() > method in Shale's ViewController (SHALE-338)? If so, I still like the idea > ... just need to see the follow through :-). > > Craig > > > Just my $0.02 > > > > -M > > > > On 12/20/06, Werner Punz < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Craig McClanahan schrieb: > > > > > > > > One of the architectural approaches that MyFaces developers seem to do > > > > pretty often, even when they don't have to, is think of everything as > > > > needing a component. To me, this involves the person building the > view > > > > in decisions that really belong to the person working on the business > > > > logic. Yes, it's often the same person, but where is the separation > of > > > > concerns? > > > > > > > That was indeed the concerns of the original scope tag > > > (I am using it currently btw. it is excellent work) > > > the original intent was to have a viable replacement for savestate > > > which would allow quick and dirty scoping with a > > > a visual/tag approach. > > > > > > Mario did this approach and he solved it in an excellent way > > > and yes, there is a break in separation of concerns and it was > > > intended by design to ease the development of small applications, > > > > > > you basically push the scope control and parts of the transaction > > > handling into the visual part. > > > > > > But the idea was to have a tag like way for those things, and if you > > > need it differently (which many apps do but many small ones dont) > > > have other frameworks deal with it. > > > > > > Now Mario, now he is moving into the Spring domain with his stuff, seems > > > to be covering, let other frameworks do the scope control approach, > > > as well. > > > > > > Btw. The scope tag of Mario is really excellent you should give it a > > > try, but I agree, separation of concerns is not really there and cannot > > > be by design principle, but there are other frameworks and solutions > > > to deal with this. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Matthias Wessendorf > > http://tinyurl.com/fmywh > > > > further stuff: > > blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf > > mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com > > > > -- Matthias Wessendorf http://tinyurl.com/fmywh further stuff: blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
