Ok I think I'll go with facet or icon since it seems to be the most accepted scenario. I'm going to comment the component accordingly.
On 9/20/07, Adam Winer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm happier if we don't add any attributes... We definitely > want default behavior where, if nothing is specified, > the icons get shown. > > -- Adam > > > On 9/20/07, Jeanne Waldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > The other api I like is one you mentioned was not backwards compatible, > and > > that is to have them put the icon in the facet if they want an icon. > > > > I agree that the below API is busy, but to me it is clear. No guessing > what > > the logic is. > > > > > > Simon Lessard wrote: > > Hello Jeanne, > > > > Something alike was proposed at first, but again the most common usage > > kicks in. Such attributes imply, for GMail like behavior: > > > > <tr:statusIndicator hideReadyIcon="true" hideBusyIcon="true"> > > <f:facet name="busy"> > > <tr:outputText value="Loading..."/> > > </f:facet> > > </tr:statusIndicator> > > > > It's a bit longer, but it's easily livable with I guess. > > > > > > On 9/20/07, Jeanne Waldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > How about hideReadyIcon = "true/false" > > > hideBusyIcon = "true/false". > > > > > > It's explicit and the user doesn't have to guess at the logic we are > using > > -- or read the doc. > > > > > > - Jeanne > > > > > > > > > Simon Lessard 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
