Hey, stop, the colon is what the NamingContainer uses, as stated in
section 3.2.2 of the spec.
'NamingContainer defines a public static final character constant,
SEPARATOR_CHAR, that is used to separate components of client
identifiers, as well
as the components of search expressions used by the findComponent() method see
(Section 3.1.8 "Component Tree Navigation"). The value of this
constant must be a
colon character (":").'
So, better to keep it ;-)
Regards,
Bruno
2005/7/1, Bruno Aranda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I don't know why I always say 'release' implementation instead of
> 'reference'... :-P
>
> Bruno
>
> 2005/7/1, Bruno Aranda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > IMO it should be ok, but this is not a trivial change as many users
> > will need to update their javascript id references (if they are not
> > using forceId), and, moreover, the compatibility with the release
> > implementation will be lower as, AFAIK, it uses colons ':' as
> > separator chars...
> >
> > Bruno
> >
> > 2005/7/1, Grant Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > Grant Smith wrote:
> > >
> > > > Sean,
> > > >
> > > > I just committed a change to InputSuggestRenderer which MAY solve your
> > > > problem. If it doesn't, it means that the id is being prepended to by
> > > > something I don't understand. As it is, I don't see how colons are
> > > > being generated by UIViewRoot.createUniqueId(), so this might just be
> > > > a klundge until I understand things better.
> > > >
> > > > Let me know if it works
> > >
> > > OK,
> > >
> > > Here is what I now know:
> > >
> > > UIComponentBase uses NamingContainer.SEPARATOR_CHAR to build the id. I
> > > would like to propose changing
> > >
> > > public interface NamingContainer
> > > {
> > > public static final char SEPARATOR_CHAR = ':';
> > > }
> > >
> > > to
> > >
> > > public interface NamingContainer
> > > {
> > > public static final char SEPARATOR_CHAR = '_';
> > > }
> > >
> > > and removing all the
> > >
> > > component.getClientId(context).replaceAll(":","_")
> > >
> > > constructs scattered throughout the system. Any objections ?
> > >
> > >
> >
>
