Use a DirectLink component, and pass the id of the invoice as a
listener parameter.
On 8/18/05, Jonas Maurus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Howard Lewis Ship <hlship <at> gmail.com> writes:
>
> >
> > I just saw another spat of user problems related to use of the action
> > service. I say "use", not "misuse" because, in my opinion, it can't be
> > used correctly. The clever tricks for maintaining client and server
> > synchronization that have evolved in Tapestry 2.x - 4.0 just aren't
> > possible with the action service.
> >
> > I would very much like to deprecate the action service and the
> > ActionLink component. Who out there is using it and why?
> >
>
> I'm currently using the ActionLink component a lot in all my projects together
> with contrib:Table.
>
> The typical use-case looks something like this:
>
> Invoices.html
> [...]
> <td jwcid="viewLinkColumnValue">
> <a jwcid="view" href="../viewers/InvoiceViewer.html">
> <span key="list.viewinvoice">details</span>
> </a>
> </td>
> [...]
>
> Invoices.page
> [...]
> <component id="invoiceTable" type="contrib:Table">
> <binding name="source" value="invoiceList" />
> <binding name="columns" value="literal:id,subject,total,viewLink,editLink"
> />
> <binding name="row" value="currentInvoice" />
> </component>
>
> <component id="view" type="ActionLink">
> <binding name="listener" value="listener:viewInvoice" />
> </component>
> [...]
>
> Usually the ActionLink's listener then does something like this (Invoice
> being a
> persistent property of InvoiceViewer):
> public IPage viewInvoice(IRequestCycle cycle) {
> InvoiceViewer iv = (InvoiceViewer)cycle.getPage("viewers/InvoiceViewer");
> iv.setInvoice(getCurrentInvoice());
> return iv;
> }
>
> This pattern comes from contrib:Table's documentation. At least, should
> ActionLink be removed, alternatives have to be documented well before we're
> doing it, especially in places like contrib:Table, where the documentation
> makes
> explicit use of this component.
>
> Still, I don't know enough about Tapestry's internals to know if it would be a
> good decision, but in any way, if it happens, it should happen now. As I've
> said
> before, it's better to make porting to 4.0 a major pain and support 3.0 a
> little
> bit longer than making big changes between 4.0 and 4.1.
>
> How would you solve the above problem without using ActionLink?
>
> cheers,
> Jonas
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
--
Howard M. Lewis Ship
Independent J2EE / Open-Source Java Consultant
Creator, Jakarta Tapestry
Creator, Jakarta HiveMind
Professional Tapestry training, mentoring, support
and project work. http://howardlewisship.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
