How about hideReadyIcon = "true/false"
hideBusyIcon = "true/false".
It's explicit and the user doesn't have to guess at the logic we are
using -- or read the doc.
- Jeanne
Simon Lessard 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
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
|
