but that is a flag with a meaning for the html tags, it is written through to the html output - I don't think we should tamper with those tags.
regards, Martin On 5/4/05, Korhonen, Kalle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Shouldn't we rather use the standard "readonly" attribute for this, as > specified in JSF RI? > > Kalle > > > readonlyfalsefalsejava.lang.String Flag indicating that this component will > prohibit changes by the user. The element may receive focus unless it has > also been disabled. > > > ________________________________ > From: Sylvain Vieujot [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 6:53 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Fwd: [Myfaces-develop] New feature suggestion : Edit mode > > > Quite sometimes ago, we discussed on adding an editMode attribute the > meaningful x: components. > The explanation for this is in the forwarded email discussion bellow. > > To summarize what it's about : > <x:inputText ... editMode="true"> renders as the standard input box > <x:inputText ... editMode="false"> renders as an x:outputText > > I now need those features, and would like to implement them (have them > implemented). > So, I would like to check everyone still agrees with this. > > Thanks, > > Sylvain. > > Subject: Re: [Myfaces-develop] New feature suggestion : Edit mode > Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 10:51:39 -0400 > One more precision : > I didn't dig into the role based access -- used in disabled for example -- > right now. > Maybe we have to think for one minute about the integration of this with > editMode. > > As of now, I think it works well : > editMode == true => standard behavior > editMode == false => renders as output anyway. > > But as I'm not sure I fully understand the MyFaces roles right now, maybe > I'm wrong or there is something smarter to do. > > Sylvain. > > On Fri, 2004-07-30 at 10:12, Sylvain Vieujot wrote: > > Yes, that's it. > > I also think that the editmode attribute is better (in fact editMode as I > think this is the convention, like for actionListener). > > Thanks for your feedback. > > Sylvain. > > On Fri, 2004-07-30 at 03:22, Manfred Geiler wrote: > Hi, > Just a short summarize of your suggestion, so that I'm sure that I got > it right: > - we indroduce a new attribute "edit" (or "editmode") for all extended > input components (x: tags) > - default value of this attribute is true > - value of true does not change rendering > - value of false renders an output (normal html text) instead of an > input (html input tag) > > Ok, her is my vote: > +1 for such an attribute > +.4 for name "edit" > +.6 for name "editmode" > > Regards, > Manfred > > > Sylvain Vieujot wrote: > > *Feedback requested on implementing a new edit attribute for the x: tags : > > * > > I used to program a lot with Notes/Domino, and Domino has a very nice > > feature : > > You design a form, and the you use it either in read or edit mode. > > In read mode, you just see the fields contents (i.e. h:outputText in > > JSF), and in edit mode, you have the corresponding input field (i.e. > > h:inputText(area) in JSF). > > > > This is a very useful feature that really help to quicken the development. > > In JSF right now, as far as I know, you either have to design 2 forms : > > one for read mode, and one for edit mode, or (especially if the access > > can be different for each field) like here : > > > > <h:inputText value="#{order.client}" size="50" > rendered="#{editMode.edit}"/> > > <h:outputText value="#{order.client}" rendered="#{! editMode.edit}"/> > > > > I think it would be way easier to add an *edit* attribute to the x: > > tags, that would reduce the upper code to : > > > > <x:inputText value="#{order.client}" size="50" *edit*="#{editMode.edit}"/> > > > > For sure, you can use the disabled attribute, but here, you wouldn't > > have the text in a disabled box, but you would see it clear which is > > much nicer. > > For the x:dateInput tag that I just did, it would also look nicer to see > > a clean text with the date/time instead of all the input fields/combo > boxes. > > For the x:fileUpload also, it would allow to display the file name and > > maybe render the file in case the edit attribute is set to false. > > > > In the current MyFaces exemples, for the dataTable.jsf example, if you > > want to edit all the countries, you also have to design a new form. > > I think with an edit attribute, we could avoid the countryTableForm.jsf, > > and have only one form. > > > > I also need a wiki style input tag where in edit mode, you enter text > > with wiki like formating, and in read mode, you just see the formated > text. > > In such cases, the edit (or whatever we choose to name it) attribute is > > mandatory. > > > > So, my question is : > > Would you agree that we implement a standard edit attribute for all the > > x: tags where it's relevant ? > > > > And as you might guess, I think it would really be a big plus for > > MyFaces as it would dramatically improve and simplify some developments. > > > > Thanks for your feedback. > > > > Sylvain. > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by OSTG. Have you noticed the changes on > Linux.com, ITManagersJournal and NewsForge in the past few weeks? Now, > one more big change to announce. We are now OSTG- Open Source Technology > Group. Come see the changes on the new OSTG site. www.ostg.com > _______________________________________________ > Myfaces-develop mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/myfaces-develop > >
