There is no reason to change the cursor unless you want the GUI to be
unresponsive to clicks and key presses right? The goal of a busy
cursor would be to block any user input and let them know things are
busy. In that case this works:
<tr:commandLink partialSubmit="true" blocking="true" />
Then if that is indeed what is desired, then maybe what is best is to
have all components that have "autoSubmit" support also support
"blocking".
Along with that, perhaps the ability for blocking should also be added
to the JavaScript call "TrPage.getInstance().sendPartialFormPost"
I would see this as a more flexible architecture, as it leaves the
choice of whether or not to block user input up to each control
instead of making the blocking a choice of the status indicator.
Different approaches could be (1) always block on PPR or (2) block on
certain types of PPR only or (3) block on the majority PPR but with
the occasional exception (like a poll for example).
Just my $.02
-Andrew
On 9/18/07, Simon Lessard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A way to set the cursor directly would be nice. I'm sure we're going to see
> users wanting that. Is there a way to directly set the current cursor?
> Dunno, some obscure JavaScript function...
>
> Also, I could use more input on the indicator behavior in case only one
> facet is specified and/or rendered.
>
>
> On 9/18/07, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > ...was just a thought ... :-)
> >
> > On 9/18/07, Andrew Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > BTW: this does work, but is ugly:
> > >
> > > BODY * {
> > > cursor: pointer !important;
> > > }
> > >
> > >
> > > On 9/18/07, Andrew Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > That does not fully work, in Firefox at least (just tried it, the
> > > > cursor still reverts to an I-Beam for input text boxes for example)
> > > >
> > > > On 9/18/07, Simon Lessard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > It's possible to set the cursor on the body node, would have to use
> a skin
> > > > > property rather than a style property, but I'm not sure I like that.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 9/18/07, Andrew Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > I'm not sure a cursor will work. The cursor applies to the
> front-most
> > > > > > element underneath the cursor. The only way, that I am aware of,
> to
> > > > > > get a global cursor is to float (using absolute positioning and
> > > > > > z-index) an HTML element (like a DIV) over the entire page. This
> is
> > > > > > what the "blocking" functionality already does in Trinidad (I
> > > > > > believe).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So really, is it not the job of the programmer to ensure the PPR
> > > > > > request is a blocking request and not the job of the status
> indicator
> > > > > > to change the cursor?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 9/18/07, Simon Lessard < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > > Hmm I don't think this should be directly in the indicator
> contract. If
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > is, then I think it should be a new "type" attribute on the
> status
> > > > > indicator
> > > > > > > with the following values:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "icon": render default icons (default value)
> > > > > > > "cursor": change the cursor on document level (requires a way to
> > > > > specified
> > > > > > > the busy and ready cursor though)
> > > > > > > "facets": render busy and ready facets
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 9/18/07, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > > > one more,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > what about changing the cursor, when statusIndicator is busy ?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -M
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 9/18/07, Matthias Wessendorf < [EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > I think
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > no facet => icon is rendered;
> > > > > > > > > otherwise, no icon is rendered.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > -M
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On 9/18/07, Simon Lessard < [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Hmm not as simple as I though. Before pushing a patch let
> decide
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > behavior for every use case:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Both facets are specified and rendered --> Don't render
> any icon
> > > > > > > > > > Both facets are specified but only one is rendered --> ?
> > > > > > > > > > Both facets are specified but neither are rendered --> ?
> > > > > > > > > > Only one facet is specified and rendered --> Don't render
> any
> > > > > icon or
> > > > > > > > > > render the icon of the missing facet?
> > > > > > > > > > Only one facet is specified but not rendered --> ?
> > > > > > > > > > No facet is specified --> Render both icons
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ~ Simon
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On 9/18/07, Simon Lessard < [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Or put tr:icon in the facet. Yeah, that sound good too.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On 9/18/07, Matthias Wessendorf < [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > that sounds like the best solution.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On 9/18/07, Adam Winer < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > IMO, if we have a facet, we don't render the icon.
> No need
> > > > > > > > > > > > > for an attribute at all.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyone that desperately needs both the facet and the
> icon
> > > > > > > > > > > > > can render two statusIndicators.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Adam
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On 9/18/07, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >
> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 9/18/07, Simon Lessard <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Speaking of which, I forgot to add skin
> documentation.
> > > > > I'll
> > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > > that right
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > away.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would also like to add a new attribute to skip
> the
> > > > > icon
> > > > > > > > > > rendering. If it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hasn't been of backward compatibility, I would
> have
> > > > > simply
> > > > > > > removed
> > > > > > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I added a demo usage of the facet's, I was
> thinking, that
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > shouldn't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > render the "default" icon,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > glad you pointed it out now.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > since it's easily doable with a combination of
> facet and
> > > > > > > tr:icon,
> > > > > > > > > > but since
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we had a release with the statusIndicator
> already,
> > > > > that's
> > > > > > > out of
> > > > > > > > > > question.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, what I need now is a decent attribute name.
> What do
> > > > > you
> > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "renderIcon" or "renderFacetsOnly"?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I tend to like renderFacetsOnly, because that what
> you
> > > > > added
> > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > > facets.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps, we can change that soon, that when
> facet's are
> > > > > > > specified,
> > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > don't render the "default" icon.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Matthias
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~ Simon
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Matthias Wessendorf
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > further stuff:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > blog:
> > > > > > > http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > Matthias Wessendorf
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > further stuff:
> > > > > > > > > > > > blog:
> > > > > http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> > > > > > > > > > > > mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > Matthias Wessendorf
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > further stuff:
> > > > > > > > > blog:
> http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> > > > > > > > > mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Matthias Wessendorf
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > further stuff:
> > > > > > > > blog:
> http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> > > > > > > > mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Matthias Wessendorf
> >
> > further stuff:
> > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> > mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
> >
>
>
