Yes, I can use forceId=true when I want it, but my sentiments exactly (about altering the id), if I set an ID, it would be nice to not have to set forceId="true" also. Especially in this new rich client / ajaxing era that we seem to be rolling into.
Thanks for the info on what's going on Adam. Travis On 11/22/05, Adam Winer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sean, > > IMO, the lamenesses are that UIForm is a NamingContainer, > and <f:subview> is required for includes. I argued strongly > against the former during JSF 1.0, but couldn't turn the tide. > The latter's been cleared up for JSF 1.2 (and despite what > the spec said, <f:subview> wasn't ever *really* required), > and prefixing can be turned of for UIForms too in JSF 1.2. > > Subtract these two issues, and "forceId" isn't especially > necessary or useful. > > Regards, > Adam > > > On 11/22/05, Sean Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Is there any particular reason why you can't just use forceId=true for > > when you want it? My thinking is that its better to give the user the > > flexability to decide rather then "force" them into a particular > > choice. (Which is why I think its lame that JSF alters your id when > > generating the client id.) > > > > sean > > > > On 11/18/05, Travis Reeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Working on this ajax stuff, I got to wondering why we don't just have > > > id's implemented like forceId = true? Is there any reason why we > > > can't just have all id's set to the id the user specifies without > > > prepending stuff to them? > > > > > > Travis > > > > > >
