On the vote for set a facet = no icons, someone could easily: <tr:statusIndicator> <f:facet name="busy"><tr:outputText value="busy"/></f:facet> <f:facet name="read"><tr:icon name="..." /></f:facet> </tr:statusIndicator>
This way they can sill use the icon. Just requires more typing On 9/19/07, Adam Winer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 9/19/07, Perkins, Nate-P63196 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Yes, but why pollute the page unnecessarily with an empty outputText? > > Indeed. (I'd probably use a tr:group, but same deal). > > The flip side is wondering how much of a pain it'd be to > implement "I want to change the ready icon, but not the busy icon" > if we go with "set either facet, both icons are gone". Either design > makes someone's life hard... which do we think is more common? > > > If I approach the subject from a maintainability perspective, I think > > its more intuitive for the documentation to state why the icon is gone > > then to have to figure out why some developer stuck an empty outputText > > into a facet. > > Anyone hacking in either case does have the option of > including a comment in the page, ya know! > > -- Adam > > > > > I've been watching this thread, so I hope you don't mind my 2 cents.... > > > > > > Nate Perkins > > General Dynamics C4 Systems > > > > >This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and > > may contain GDC4S > > > confidential or privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, > > disclosure or distribution > > > is prohibited. If you are not an intended recipient, please contact > > the sender by reply email and > > > destroy all copies of the original message. > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Adam Winer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 9:24 AM > > To: MyFaces Development > > Subject: Re: svn commit: r576576 [1/3] - in > > /myfaces/trinidad/trunk/trinidad: > > trinidad-build/src/main/resources/META-INF/maven-faces-plugin/components > > /trinidad/core/ > > trinidad-impl/src/main/java/org/apache/myfaces/trinidadinternal/renderki > > t/core/xhtml/ trinida > > > > OK, five seconds more consideration, and now I'm torn. > > It's easy enough to write: > > > > <tr:statusIndicator> > > <f:facet name="busy">Loading...</f:facet> > > <f:facet name="ready"><tr:outputText/></f:facet> > > </tr:statusIndicator> > > > > ... which would have the same effect. So I could really > > go either way. > > > > -- Adam > > > > On 9/19/07, Adam Winer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I see what you're saying... I think I'd be OK then with a rule > > > where specifying either facet gets rid of both icons. Especially > > > with a bit of doc explaining why it does that (exactly the example > > > you give). > > > > > > -- Adam > > > > > > > > > > > > On 9/19/07, Simon Lessard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hello Adam, > > > > > > > > On 9/18/07, Adam Winer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > I think it should be as simple as for each of "busy" and > > > > > "ready", render the facet if it's present, the icon if it's not. > > > > > > > > The only issue with that behavior is most common usage. I think the > > most > > > > common usage with facets is going to be a "busy" facet and no > > "ready" (to > > > > mimic GMail behavior for example). Personally, that's the way I > > would use > > > > it. If that's really the most common case, then it should be "as > > soon as a > > > > facet is specified, rendered or not, no icon will be rendered". But, > > if we > > > > think the most common case is going to be with both facets, then I > > agree > > > > with your suggestion. > > > > > > > > ~ Simon > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Adam > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
