Hi Adam,
Of course - every component which does something special will need to
handle this in its special way. Only the component knows about this
stuff in JSF - a component is a blackbox is a blackbox is a blackbox
;) and should handle that.
I'm doing exactly that.
Wrapping the component into a proxy is (as I implemented it right now)
done for the UIInput base now, but I've been suggesting the cool AOP
stuff to Manfred, and we both agreed we want to arrive there finally
;).
And of course, I am doing no find-reference. That would be irrrkks....
regards,
Martin
On 1/27/06, Adam Winer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My hunch is that you'll never be able to solve this without the
> components really getting into the picture, and in particular, you have
> to give stamping components (UIData, etc.) and parents with interesting
> behavior (the ADF UIXRegion component) a chance to intercept
> processing. Trying to perform the process entirely externally
> to the components (given a UIViewRoot and a clientId, locate the
> target component, accounting for UIData and all other interesting
> parent components and their behavior) is a path to great pain
> and "just-one-more-patch-and-*now*-it'll-work" hell.
>
> Wrapping components inside proxies is also likely to be a major
> nightmare (perhaps unless you use AOP-type techniques like those
> Spring uses to re-expose interfaces, etc.). FWIW, a plain
> "findReference" isn't sufficient, because it's not enough to
> set the current row of data, you have to unset it when you leave
> the child component.
>
>
> -- Adam
>
>
> On 1/26/06, Martin Marinschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hmm....
> >
> > yes, you're right - we could do that.
> >
> > but of course, Jacob is right in that the user might expect something
> > for their javascript methods as well.
> >
> > and I am sure as soon as we change that, we'll get 15 requests of
> > users asking why we are doing that differently than the RI here ;)
> >
> > regards,
> >
> > Martin
> >
> > On 1/25/06, Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I believe the spec requires JSF-generated ids to start with "_", and
> > > that using "_id" is merely MyFaces convention.
> > >
> > > if (id starts with "_id") {
> > > // ok, this is MyFaces-generated, and is not a row id
> > > } else if (id starts with "_") {
> > > // ok, this is MyFaces-generated, and is a table index
> > > rowNum = Integer.parse(id.substring(1))
> > > } else {
> > > // this is user-specified
> > > }
> > >
> > > On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 10:05 +0100, Martin Marinschek wrote:
> > > > Yes, you have a point here.
> > > >
> > > > but in fact, autogenerated id's don't start with _, but with _id.
> > > >
> > > > and if we do that, I again loose my ability to make a distinction
> > > > between a row-id and a sub-component-id :(
> > > >
> > > > regards,
> > > >
> > > > Martin
> > > >
> > > > On 1/25/06, Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > Firstly, the format used when a table modifies the client-id to ensure
> > > > > row uniqueness is not in the spec as far as I know, so any code that
> > > > > depends on client ids of a specific layout isn't valid.
> > > > >
> > > > > Secondly, MyFaces traditionally used _rownum rather than :rownum
> > > > > anyway,
> > > > > and only changed to using a colon like RI after the last release. So
> > > > > changing it now is no problem as far as I can see.
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree that ":" is logical, as the per-row behaviour is very like
> > > > > each
> > > > > row is a NamingContainer. I also suggest that "_" on the front of the
> > > > > number is the logical behaviour (though not specified).
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 16:30 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > > > > You don't want to massage API client ids from what exists now,
> > > > > > that's a pretty dramatic
> > > > > > change for people that have expected those ids within the UI.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 16:12 +0100, Martin Marinschek wrote:
> > > > > > >> Ok
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> I've discussed with Manfred some more, and we agreed upon the
> > > > > > >> fact
> > > > > > >> that mixing the two approaches together would be the best
> > > > > > >> solution.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> So you have the normal findComponent() call on a
> > > > > > >> naming-container, and
> > > > > > >> if this naming container is doing something special to it's
> > > > > > >> components
> > > > > > >> and it finds the referential information for setting this
> > > > > > >> context up
> > > > > > >> in the client-id, we deliver back a properly initialized
> > > > > > >> perspective.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Now if we want to do some serious work on the component itself,
> > > > > > >> we'll
> > > > > > >> have a "visit" or "execute" method on the perspective, with
> > > > > > >> which you
> > > > > > >> can actually do the serious work on the properly initialized
> > > > > > >> component.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >+1.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >The only potential issue is code that calls findComponent then
> > > > > > >casts the
> > > > > > >result to a specific UIComponent subclass. But any such code that
> > > > > > >is
> > > > > > >passing an id with an embedded rowId in it is probably not doing
> > > > > > >what is
> > > > > > >expected at the current time anyway.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> By the way - I've also talked to John Fallows about this - he is
> > > > > > >> not
> > > > > > >> 100% d'accord, but he sees the basic problem as well. What he
> > > > > > >> proposes
> > > > > > >> is a customized lifecycle, along with a filter, just like in
> > > > > > >> ADF-faces.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >I'd be interested in hearing more about that. Can you post a
> > > > > > >summary?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >I'd just like to bring up my earlier proposal again: to move to
> > > > > > >using
> > > > > > >"_{rownum}" rather than just {rownum} for the index. As the rownum
> > > > > > >is a
> > > > > > >generated id, and generated ids are required to start with "_" I
> > > > > > >think
> > > > > > >this would be the right thing to do. Example:
> > > > > > > form1:table1:_3:component1
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Regards,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Simon
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > http://www.irian.at
> > > >
> > > > Your JSF powerhouse -
> > > > JSF Consulting, Development and
> > > > Courses in English and German
> > > >
> > > > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > http://www.irian.at
> >
> > Your JSF powerhouse -
> > JSF Consulting, Development and
> > Courses in English and German
> >
> > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
> >
>
--
http://www.irian.at
Your JSF powerhouse -
JSF Consulting, Development and
Courses in English and German
Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
