Gabrielle Crawford said the following On 3/10/2008 5:50 PM PT:
Gerhard Petracek wrote:
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.)
sure, but alternative or not I'm still -1. :-(
I would rather have one mechanism that does the whole job rather than
two that partially solve the problem and then have to explain when you
should use one rather than the other.
-- Blake Sullivan
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.
Sure, I'm not saying there isn't a problem, I'm just saying I don't
like this particular solution.
the current default command mechanism is very restricted in view of
focus handling.
-> the patch provides an alternative focus handling.
Can you give an example use case?
concerning conventions:
what are your counter-arguments?
Well, first of all it makes the id's longer which has a perf impact.
But far more important is that I believe API's should be explicit,
naming conventions are not explicit, for example it makes it difficult
for a DT to do something useful.
Thanks,
Gabrielle
