hello blake, i completely agree.
as i said (see [1]): it's an independent implementation i already have. so i'm able to provide it. i would appreciate if you (or someone else) provide an implementation, which covers all requirements. support for: - subforms - different types of focus handling - conventions and of course: the solutions shouldn't break backward compatibility. regards, gerhard [1] http://www.nabble.com/-Trinidad--subform-defaultCommand-p15815227.html 2008/3/11, Blake Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > 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 > > -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
