hello gabrielle, thank you for joining the discussion!
as i said: it isn't a replacement of the current mechanism! it's just an additional/alternative approach and you are free to activate it within the web.xml - including all advantages and disadvantages. (in most cases every solution provides advantages and disadvantages.) the whole issue is based on common requirements of real world projects. i'm sure that there is a reason for the current approach. however, there are also other opinions out there. so it would be great to alternatively support other common requirements. the current default command mechanism is very restricted in view of focus handling. -> the patch provides an alternative focus handling. concerning conventions: what are your counter-arguments? regards, gerhard 2008/3/10, Gabrielle Crawford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Hi, > > I can see that subform needs defaultCommand, what other issue are you > solving? The issue says what you did, but not why. > > I just skimmed the proposal, and this is making me nervous. > > id format of default command components: > [custom id]defaultCommand > > > If you're saying we'll identify things by a naming convention for the id > attribute then -1. I don't think we should start using the id for this > sort of thing. > > Thanks, > > > Gabrielle > > > Gerhard Petracek wrote: > > hello, > > > > before i'll commit the patch of TRINIDAD-996: > > are there any further suggestions? > > > > it's an alternative mechanism (-> no replacement). > > (you have to activate it explicitly with a context-param.) > > > > regards, > > gerhard > > > > > > > > -- > > > > http://www.irian.at > > > > Your JSF powerhouse - > > JSF Consulting, Development and > > Courses in English and German > > > > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces > -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
