I am not sure of how feasible this is, but I know one complication of
skinning components rather than styling HTML is that of nesting. In
CSS you can have:
DIV.myclass > SPAN.myclass
to single out a specific parent-child relationship. This is very
powerful as it does not affect all children but only the direct
children. The problem with skinning and components is that this is not
possible to have this type of relationship:
af|borderLayout > af|tree
The reason this is hard is that a component may render many HTML
elements. So af|borderLayout may be on a DIV but have other HTML
elements under that DIV before the tree is begun.
It would be great if this were possible. In order to do it the skin
would have to be made aware of how the renderers render HTML though. I
know this would be a challenge, but if possible I think it would be a
great feature.
This would make things possible like this:
af|panelBorderLayout.darkBackground > af|tree
This is better than:
af|panelBorderLayout.darkBackground af|tree
because it would not break this:
af|borderLayout.lightBackground af|tree
Full theoretical use case:
af|panelBorderLayout.darkBackground {
background-color: black;
color: white;
}
af|panelBorderLayout.darkBackground > af|tree {
color: yellow;
}
af|panelBorderLayout.lightBackground {
background-color: white;
color: black;
}
af|panelBorderLayout.darkBackground > af|tree {
color: gray;
}
This is a very simple use case, but basically there could be times
where it is desirable to skin a direct child component and not all
children components of a type.
Something to chew on...
-Andrew
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 9:41 AM, Simon Lessard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This post is to determine the requirements of a common skinning module for
> MyFaces and potentially for JSF 2.0 if good enough. It's following the post
> about skinning from the previous days. I'll leave this post opened for 72
> hours then we'll start designing accordingly, most likely starting from what
> I proposed in the aforementioned skinning post with some potential changes
> to fit the requirements we're going to choose.
>
> Paul Rivera proposed the following list:
>
> from trinidad:
>
> basic css style skinning
> global styles/aliases
> skin extensions
> skin additions for custom component developers
> properties skinning
> icon skinning
> text skinning / translations
>
> using bundle-name
> using translation-source
>
> skin variants based on:
>
> agent name
> agent version
> platform name
> accessibility-profile
> direction (:rtl)
> locale (@locale, :lang) -> Accdg to the skinning guide, this is not yet
> implemented in trinidad
>
> dynamically changing skins at runtime
> compressed styleclass names feature
> CHECK_FILE_MODIFICATION feature
> And as Jeanne mentioned, compatibility with portals. I don't have much
> experience with portals. I will probably need to look more into this.
>
> added requirements:
>
> tomahawk-support: make use of AddResource and ExtensionsFilter
> generic-support
>
> Personally I disagree quite a lot with that list. Not that those aren't nice
> features, it's just that they're implementation details and not API
> requirements imho. I would indeed like to see a special implementation
> support all that, I would just not link them o the base API in any way.
> Among other thing it expose way too much about the rendering technology
> being used and nothing about the extensibility requirement that fits JSF
> architecture. My own list would look like the following. It's a priority
> list so I believe overdoing a lower requirement at the expense of the higher
> shouldn't be done:
>
> The skinning module should
>
> Be pluggable like other JSF modules (various handlers)
> Allow skin composition and extension for maximum reuse and enforce better
> interoperability between various extensions
> Allow skin change at runtime
> Be localizable
> Leverages existing API (JSF 2.0) whenever possible rather than adding extra
> classes and methods
> Be independant from the rendering technology used (not necessarily CSS for
> HTML render kit)
> Allow maximum compatibility with existing skin/theme modules (Trinidad,
> IceFaces, Richfaces), not necessarily by providing direct support for those
> feature but by allowing extension to implement those features using the
> module's API
> Be fast, the module shouldn't induce an inherent performance overhaul
>
> My list is way more general, but you can place some of what Paul mentioned
> in one of them so here's Paul list again but with what requirement it would
> fall in in my list. The elements in green are covered by the requirements,
> those in red are implementation detail that shouldn't be required for all
> implementation and the skin's general contract. Elements in blue are those
> that should have a requirement but currently don't because I don't know how
> to put them down or if they really should be requirement and finally,
> elements in orange are relevant but that I didn't consider in my proposed
> API (which is a problem):
>
> from trinidad:
>
> basic css style skinning (implementation detail, not a hard requirement)
> global styles/aliases (implementation detail, not a hard requirement)
> skin extensions (REQ 2 through extension)
> skin additions for custom component developers (REQ 2 through composition)
> properties skinning (Not currently a requirement)
> icon skinning (Not currently a requirement)
> text skinning / translations (REQ 4)
>
> using bundle-name
> using translation-source
>
> skin variants based on: (implementation detail, not a hard requirement,
> could be implemented at RenderKit level, Factory level or loader level with
> what I proposed)
>
> agent name
> agent version
> platform name
> accessibility-profile
> direction (:rtl)
> locale (@locale, :lang) -> Accdg to the skinning guide, this is not yet
> implemented in trinidad
>
> dynamically changing skins at runtime (REQ 3)
> compressed styleclass names feature (implementation detail, not a hard
> requirement)
> CHECK_FILE_MODIFICATION feature (implementation detail, not a hard
> requirement)
> And as Jeanne mentioned, compatibility with portals. I don't have much
> experience with portals. I will probably need to look more into this. (REQ
> 1, through module override the portlet bridge could most likely achieve it,
> adding explicit support for that would go against REQs 1, 5, 6 and 7 I
> think)
>
> added requirements:
>
> tomahawk-support: make use of AddResource and ExtensionsFilter
> (implementation detail, not a hard requirement)
> generic-support (implementation detail, not a hard requirement)
>
> Regards,
>
> ~ Simon
>
