Ah, come on. You're being polemic, Mike ;)
regards, Martin P.S.: What do we go for now? A bean or a resolver? What about extending the thing - it would be easier with a bean, right? On 8/16/06, Mike Kienenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 8/16/06, Cagatay Civici <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think the real question is where to draw the line. Should we > > really be maintaining a component that only works for a subset of the > > cases and only saves a few characters of typing? I'd recommend that > > someone who strongly feels the need for such a component start using > > Facelets and implement s:secure as template that generates the > > panelGroup tag :-) > > Typing less and reduced effort is what ROR guys are proud of nowadays:) I > still think using multiple panel groups looks like a hack and we should > consider not everyone is a facelets user. > > One user may like using EL or another user may like s:secure. In the end the > whole idea is to provide out of the box features for security and reduce the > amount of work and time of myfaces users that they need to enable security. Yes, but you're adding 2 new files, changing 2 others, writing documentation and examples, and forcing the rest of us to maintain it. :-) There's no new functionality here, and it's not reducing any effort in my opinion. This assumes that we go forward and created a resolver or a bean. A resolver or a bean makes perfect sense, but a component doesn't. We don't want to be creating a new component every time someone wants to "save time" by creating a special-case panelGroup :-) Today <s:secure>, Tomorrow <s:myDataTableHasNoRows>, <s:myListIsEmpty>, <s:myVariableIsNull>
-- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
