Hello all,
I've looked at this one a fair amount as I've had to work around the current behavior in some cases for our own internal components. I think the <t:head> and <t:body> tags make the most sense, but they should indeed be optional. The features currently being handled in the ResponseWriter.endDocument(), namely the autoscroll and dummyForm functionality, seem to me to be "value-add" sort of features.
Jeremy
| Sylvain Vieujot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
09/27/2005 07:48 AM
|
|
Hello Martin,
I'm not sure I understand this.
Would you require every page having a t:component to have t:head & t:body components as well ?
If this is the case, it would be a lead to a lot ot other problems I think.
For example, it would break old pages. Also, you could not include just a t:component in a page that would otherwise for fine with the RI.
Sylvain.
On Tue, 2005-09-27 at 12:33 +0200, Martin Marinschek wrote:
Hi *,
There is a long standing bug MYFACES-152
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MYFACES-152
which needs our attention, for facelets and ADF faces compatibility.
What do you say to my suggestion to move writing these scripts to the
encodeEnd Method of a newly created t:head/t:body component?
With this approach, we could also support including component
resources in the header much better, as we have a clear marker for the
major areas of the HTML page...
regards,
Martin
