I think Simon's question is not about why "forceId" exists in the first place, but why AJAX would *require* its use.
The former was discussed long ago. The latter is a new question which deserves careful consideration. -- Adam On 11/23/05, Sean Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Simon, > > There are a few very long threads on this in the archives (when > forceId first came about.) Not only is it awkward to add > "form1:subview2" etc to every reference in your javascript but if you > change your JSF form structure all of your javascript needs to change > too! (NOTE: Its not always practical to have your component generate > your javascript.) > > Again, see the archived discussions for more on the reasoning. It was > a pretty lively debate with lots of good points raised on all sides. > > sean > > On 11/22/05, Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Travis, > > > > I don't know anything about the AJAX compoents so please excuse me if > > this is a silly question. But why are the AJAX components requiring > > "forceId" in the first place? > > > > If a component's true id at the back end is "form1:subview2:table3", > > then why not use that id in all the AJAX stuff rather than requiring the > > table to use forceId? > > > > Travis Reeder wrote: > > > 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. > > >
