Can someone explain to me why it wouldn't work perfectly well to output the autoscroll Javascript when: - A Renderer that might take advantage of autoscroll is rendered - The autoscroll Javascript hasn't already been written
Everyone keeps jumping to filters and custom tags; I can imagine that for the dummy form code, but I can't imagine why either is necessary for custom Javascript. -- Adam On Apr 1, 2005 1:04 PM, Heath Borders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm not too familiar with filters, but won't that require us to buffer > the whole request? > > That seems like quite a bit of a performance hit just for extensions. > > It seems like it would be better to provide a custom tag for the autoscroll: > > <x:autoscroll /> > > Then, then we can guarantee that it will get inserted before the end > of the body tag, and the user can use/not use it based on its > presence. > > On Apr 1, 2005 1:43 PM, Sylvain Vieujot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > No, I think Kalle is right. > > As the extensions filter is ... a filter, you store some string processings > > that will be performed on the generated html. > > As this processing is performed after the all JSF response has been > > completed, I don't think you have such problems. > > It works exactly the same way SiteMesh works. > > > > Sylvain. > > > > > > On Fri, 2005-04-01 at 13:25 -0600, Heath Borders wrote: > > We would have to parse the response then, and add it properly. The > issue is > > that you cannot guarantee that the <html /> tag will be > closed after the > > <f:view /> tag is. When the <f:view /> is closed, > that's when the > > endDocument() method is called. So, if a user has the > following > > JSP: > > <f:view> > <f:verbatim> > <html> > </f:verbatim> > <%-- more JSF content > > --%> > <f:verbatim> > </html> > </f:verbatim> > </f:view> > > This could result in the > > following html: > <html> > <!-- rendered JSF content --> > </html> > <form > > name="dummyForm" action="foo.faces"> > </form> > <script > > language="Javascript"> > // autoscroll javascript > </script> > > On Apr 1, 2005 > > 12:36 PM, Korhonen, Kalle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > -----Original > > Message----- > > > From: Heath Borders [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > Subject: Re: ResponseWriter.endDocument() vs. ADF Faces (and, hello) > > > Why > > can't we wrap every commandLink/commandButton in its own > > > dummy form if > > it doesn't have a parent form? This would mean > > > > See the JIRA on this > > http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MYFACES-152?page=comments#action_61924. > > I suggested to use ExtensionsFilter for this � la SiteMesh, what do you > > think? > > > > Kalle > > > > > > > -- > -Heath Borders-Wing > [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
