Please no non-essential changes to shared until after we release core.
I'd rather not make a Shared branch and we're on the verge of a core
releaes. Bug fixes are welcome (the sooner the better.)
We can always branch but I feel like we can resolve the bugs in the
next few days and save the trouble and confusion.
Sean
On 3/1/06, Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-03-01 at 20:15 +0100, Mario Ivankovits wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > Now that I would like to do something with AddResource I though I take
> > the change to simply its interface.
> > Currently we have a punch of methods to implement, but only a handful of
> > them are in use.
> >
> > Also that we now know that we can add scripts all around in the html
> > file we can get rid of the most of the positionInfos.
>
> I'm not sure about your proposal to add script links inline. IF there is
> no other reason for the extensions filter to buffer output then I'm in
> favour, ie if you can get your funky CSS-linking proposal to work.
>
> However if the extensions filter *has* to buffer in order to output CSS
> links, then I'm in favour of emitting script links into the head also.
> It's tidier.
>
>
> > Also the css stuff can ONLY by added to the header. Here I think it
> > makes no sense to provide a method to add the style at the current
> > position in html, even if it works, it is not required, is it?
>
> +1
>
> > With the methods above it is not possible to simulate Position.BODY_END,
> > but no one uses it.
>
> +1
>
> > Please let me know if you think its still required to have the above
> > methods with "Class myfacesCustomComponent" - no one uses it, so why
> > keep it?
> > In fact I didnt find a usage of the ResourceHandler, so if you ask me
> > I'll remove it too.
>
> I believe the myfacesCustomComponent and ResourceHandler methods are
> intended to allow user code (eg custom subclasses of tomahawk
> components) to be able to use the AddResource/extensionsfilter
> functionality. By default, only classes in packages under
> org.apache.myfaces are permitted to use AddResource.
>
> >
> > I hope this is not too radical, its just a question to make my work
> > simpler ;-)
>
> I agree AddResource could do with some polishing.
>
> One thing I would like to see changed is the functionality that inserts
> script into the body tag's onload attribute. This can more cleanly be
> done via inline script emitted into the document body that goes
> something like this:
> <script>
> var oldOnload =document.onload;
> document.onload=function() {
> oldOnload();
> // new code goes here
> }
> </script>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Simon
>
>
