On 9/19/07, Perkins, Nate-P63196 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yes, but why pollute the page unnecessarily with an empty outputText?
Indeed. (I'd probably use a tr:group, but same deal). The flip side is wondering how much of a pain it'd be to implement "I want to change the ready icon, but not the busy icon" if we go with "set either facet, both icons are gone". Either design makes someone's life hard... which do we think is more common? > If I approach the subject from a maintainability perspective, I think > its more intuitive for the documentation to state why the icon is gone > then to have to figure out why some developer stuck an empty outputText > into a facet. Anyone hacking in either case does have the option of including a comment in the page, ya know! -- Adam > > I've been watching this thread, so I hope you don't mind my 2 cents.... > > > Nate Perkins > General Dynamics C4 Systems > > >This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and > may contain GDC4S > > confidential or privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, > disclosure or distribution > > is prohibited. If you are not an intended recipient, please contact > the sender by reply email and > > destroy all copies of the original message. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Winer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 9:24 AM > To: MyFaces Development > Subject: Re: svn commit: r576576 [1/3] - in > /myfaces/trinidad/trunk/trinidad: > trinidad-build/src/main/resources/META-INF/maven-faces-plugin/components > /trinidad/core/ > trinidad-impl/src/main/java/org/apache/myfaces/trinidadinternal/renderki > t/core/xhtml/ trinida > > OK, five seconds more consideration, and now I'm torn. > It's easy enough to write: > > <tr:statusIndicator> > <f:facet name="busy">Loading...</f:facet> > <f:facet name="ready"><tr:outputText/></f:facet> > </tr:statusIndicator> > > ... which would have the same effect. So I could really > go either way. > > -- Adam > > On 9/19/07, Adam Winer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I see what you're saying... I think I'd be OK then with a rule > > where specifying either facet gets rid of both icons. Especially > > with a bit of doc explaining why it does that (exactly the example > > you give). > > > > -- Adam > > > > > > > > On 9/19/07, Simon Lessard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hello Adam, > > > > > > On 9/18/07, Adam Winer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I think it should be as simple as for each of "busy" and > > > > "ready", render the facet if it's present, the icon if it's not. > > > > > > The only issue with that behavior is most common usage. I think the > most > > > common usage with facets is going to be a "busy" facet and no > "ready" (to > > > mimic GMail behavior for example). Personally, that's the way I > would use > > > it. If that's really the most common case, then it should be "as > soon as a > > > facet is specified, rendered or not, no icon will be rendered". But, > if we > > > think the most common case is going to be with both facets, then I > agree > > > with your suggestion. > > > > > > ~ Simon > > > > > > > > > > -- Adam > > > > > > > > > > > > On 9/18/07, Simon Lessard < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Hmm not as simple as I though. Before pushing a patch let decide > on the > > > > > behavior for every use case: > > > > > > > > > > Both facets are specified and rendered --> Don't render any icon > > > > > Both facets are specified but only one is rendered --> ? > > > > > Both facets are specified but neither are rendered --> ? > > > > > Only one facet is specified and rendered --> Don't render any > icon or > > > > > render the icon of the missing facet? > > > > > Only one facet is specified but not rendered --> ? > > > > > No facet is specified --> Render both icons > > > > > > > > > > ~ Simon > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 9/18/07, Simon Lessard < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Or put tr:icon in the facet. Yeah, that sound good too. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 9/18/07, Matthias Wessendorf < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > that sounds like the best solution. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 9/18/07, Adam Winer < [EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > > > > > > IMO, if we have a facet, we don't render the icon. No > need > > > > > > > > for an attribute at all. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyone that desperately needs both the facet and the icon > > > > > > > > can render two statusIndicators. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Adam > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 9/18/07, Matthias Wessendorf < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 9/18/07, Simon Lessard < [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Speaking of which, I forgot to add skin documentation. > I'll do > > > > > that right > > > > > > > > > > away. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would also like to add a new attribute to skip the > icon > > > > > rendering. If it > > > > > > > > > > hasn't been of backward compatibility, I would have > simply > > > removed > > > > > them > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I added a demo usage of the facet's, I was thinking, > that it > > > > > shouldn't > > > > > > > > > render the "default" icon, > > > > > > > > > glad you pointed it out now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > since it's easily doable with a combination of facet > and > > > tr:icon, > > > > > but since > > > > > > > > > > we had a release with the statusIndicator already, > that's out > > > of > > > > > question. > > > > > > > > > > So, what I need now is a decent attribute name. What > do you > > > think > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > "renderIcon" or "renderFacetsOnly"? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I tend to like renderFacetsOnly, because that what you > added > > > where > > > > > facets. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps, we can change that soon, that when facet's are > > > specified, > > > > > we > > > > > > > > > don't render the "default" icon. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Matthias > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~ Simon > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > Matthias Wessendorf > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > further stuff: > > > > > > > > > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ > > > > > > > > > mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > Matthias Wessendorf > > > > > > > > > > > > > > further stuff: > > > > > > > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ > > > > > > > mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
