ok I see your issue now... Hmmm... I would prefer the names beforeEncode and
afterEncode then.
On Jan 22, 2008 5:36 PM, Andrew Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Usually I would completely agree, but in this case it may be valid. The
> encodeEnd/Begin methods that don't use the FacesBean are setup in such a way
> to use either encodeAll or encodeEnd (with the FacesBean). So I really don't
> think people should be extending these methods.
>
> On Jan 22, 2008 3:27 PM, Martin Marinschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > what is the reason of having encodeEnd and encodeBegin final?
> >
> > I have never understood why Trinidad is trying to hide possibilities
> > from the developer. Isn't it safe enough to say that renderers are not part
> > of the API, what you are doing there, might break with an update. Instead,
> > everyone is forced by this into "compliance mode"... how strange.
> >
> > regards,
> >
> > Martin
> >
> >
> > On Jan 22, 2008 10:24 PM, Andrew Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > In the development of a library based on Trinidad, I need to have some
> > > hooks in the renderer to improve performance. Specifically, I need to
> > > setup
> > > a context and strip down a context for a component. Right now,
> > > CoreRenderer.encodeEnd (FacesContext, UIComponent) is final, so I
> > > cannot extend that method and the methods it calls I cannot reliably use
> > > (see below).
> > >
> > > What I propose is:
> > >
> > > new methods on CoreRenderer:
> > > protected void startComponent(FacesContext context, RenderingContext
> > > context, UIComponent component, FacesBean bean) {}
> > > protected void endComponent(FacesContext context, RenderingContext
> > > context, UIComponent component, FacesBean bean) {}
> > >
> > > These methods would be invoked from within
> > > "CoreRenderer.encodeBegin(FacesContext,
> > > UIComponent)" and " CoreRenderer.encodeEnd(FacesContext, UIComponent)"
> > > respectively.
> > >
> > > The benefit is that someone creating a component framework on top or
> > > Trinidad can extend the ability to setup and tear down settings when a
> > > component is being rendered. In my case, I need to extend the skinning
> > > code
> > > in a framework to enable certain functionality on a per-component basis
> > > from
> > > within the skin and have this functionality global to all our renderers.
> > >
> > > You may ask "why not just extend encodeAll?". Well the problem is that
> > > I have no idea when the child class will call this. For example:
> > >
> > > protected void encodeAll(FacesContext context, RenderingContext arc,
> > > UIComponent component, FacesBean bean) throws IOException
> > > {
> > > ... code
> > > super.encodeAll(context, arc, component, bean);
> > > ... code
> > > }
> > >
> > > As you can see, encodeAll doesn't give me the ability to have a hook
> > > from the renderer class level for when the component starts and ends. It
> > > doesn't make good OO code to have to manually code it in every one of our
> > > renderers.
> > >
> > > I also see the reason in having the methods final, so would prefer the
> > > hooks over removing the final keywords from encodeBegin and encodeEnd.
> > >
> > > Any objections to adding these 2 methods/hooks?
> > >
> > > If ppl. don't mind to respond quickly, I'll make the change if I get
> > > some quick positive feedback and no negative feedback. This is a fairly
> > > high
> > > priority feature that I need this for and cannot afford the 3 day vote
> > > period.
> > >
> > > Thank you,
> > > Andrew
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > http://www.irian.at
> >
> > Your JSF powerhouse -
> > JSF Consulting, Development and
> > Courses in English and German
> >
> > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
>
>
>
