> Well, if Simon's point is that Ajax should not *require* forceId then > I agree with him (or whoever is making that point.) We're not > requiring it right now but I think that is what Travis is suggesting > (with the reasoning be that you almost always want to use it anyways.)
I'm not suggesting that you have to use forceId, I'm suggesting (or rather asking for opinions) that it would be nice to have a rendered id that is actually the id I specified without having to use forceId. Forget about AJAX, just in general. As for the AJAX stuff, just to clear things up, I have no intention of making it so forceId is required. Travis On 11/23/05, Martin Marinschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Right. > > I would never, ever want to force users to use forceId for working with AJAX. > > So, my opinion is on record ;) > > regards, > > Martin > > On 11/24/05, Sean Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Well, if Simon's point is that Ajax should not *require* forceId then > > I agree with him (or whoever is making that point.) We're not > > requiring it right now but I think that is what Travis is suggesting > > (with the reasoning be that you almost always want to use it anyways.) > > > > As for why you would *ever* want to use it with Ajax, I think Martin > > and I were answering that question. The reasoning doesn't change. > > > > sean > > > > On 11/23/05, Adam Winer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > http://www.irian.at > > Your JSF powerhouse - > JSF Consulting, Development and > Courses in English and German > > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces >
