DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35066>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35066 ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-09-27 15:39 ------- A few more thoughts on my proposed solution. Rather than using the dialog name, I am thinking the dialogs and their transitions should be identifiable according to "context" (or perhaps scope, thread, track or some other word that describes the concept.) So basically if you want to have two or more dialogs running at the same time, you just initiate one with dialog:FooStep and the other with dialog2:BarStep. DialogNavigationHandler will assume anything before the ":" refers to a particular dialog scope (I know scope isn't the right word exactly but its the best I can do for now.) This doesn't rule out using regular faces navigation rules with a ":" in them, if there is no such dialog then navigation will be delegated. This way dialog positions can be stored in a map with this scope name as the key. You can also clear the status/position information automatically when launching a dialog (in case the dialog was a popup and the dialog was terminated by closing the window.) BTW, there is yet another use case the fails with this bug. In the current code its impossible to have a sortable table in your dialog b/c all navigation is assumed to be related to dialog transitions. -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
