You are mostly understanding correctly, besides the listener reloading the entire page in the response, sort of... :)
Are your 10 components in a loop (by that I mean do you iterate over some list or array via Foreach or For )? If they are then the answer is yes to needing to invoke the page render, but even in this less than ideal scenerio none of the content besides the 20kb or so from your one component is actually returned to the client.. If however, your 10 components are not in a loop, but just 10 components sitting on the page, then I would definitely specify direct=true on the link. In that scenerio your listener will be invoked, and then your component will be found and rendered, none of the other components will even be touched. So it all depends on loops... On 11/22/05, Cosmin Bucur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ok here's a more detailed example . > > Home.page which contains 10 components . Let's just say each component is 20 > kb , and I need to refresh a single component on the page . it would be in > my best interest not to download all 10 components at the same time if i > don't need to . > > As I understand it , if you run a listener method that reloads the page , > this would cause the server to send the entire page once again . Even though > 10% of the page is needed in my case . > > So what I want to do is to minimize network trafic and server processing and > send only the needed component from the server instead of the entire page > considering that's the only thing that would be refreshed by tacos ... > > Am I understanding this wrong ? ? > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jesse Kuhnert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Tapestry users" <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 5:06 PM > Subject: Re: Serving a Component as a Page > > > Maybe I'm not understanding your use-case. Tapestry/Tacos isn't > necessarily forcing you to call a listener method on a page per > se....You could just as easily call a listener method on a component > instead. There should really be no scenerio where you need to do what > you are describing. > > The id stuff does need to be made clearer I know, and it will be, but > for now, the id can be something you've specified as an informal > parameter on your component, ie <span jwcid="@Any" id="myid"/>, or it > can be the actual components ID <span jwcid="[EMAIL PROTECTED]" /> > ... The part that needs clearing up is knowing that > "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"'s ID will change depending on how the component > is being used/embedded. ...Ie it may very well have a generated id of > mycomponent_0 or something else similar. > > If you can describe a more detailed example of what you are wanting to > do I might be able to be more helpful. > On 11/22/05, Cosmin Bucur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I've been bouncing from XTile to Tacos for a while ... > > > > i like tacos , xtile seemed to need more js written for it > > > > i don't know much about tacos internals , but it sounds logic to me that > > if > > the direct link hits a listener method , and that listener method dedcides > > to activate another page in the cycle , then should the incoming page > > contain a html element matching id with the curently displayed page , > > AjaxDirectLink would replace the elements . > > > > Should it not work like this ? If it does , the only question here is how > > to > > make tapestry serve a component instead of a page , as a page , without > > having to write special duplicated code for it . . . > > > > Cosmin > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Jesse Kuhnert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Tapestry users" <[email protected]> > > Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 4:40 PM > > Subject: Re: Serving a Component as a Page > > > > > > XTile does do this right now I think, under tapestry contrib. ? > > > > On 11/22/05, Leonardo Quijano Vincenzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > This is a slightly different approach than using the "direct" service in > > > Tacos AjaxDirectLink. That direct update has a warning over there that > > > ...well... doesn't let you use unless you know Tacos internals. So, it > > > may be better for the developer to use his own components (that he > > > already knows how to handle dependencies) and have the component answer > > > the AJAX request. > > > > > > In short... +1 for this.. .but where do we get started? > > > > > > -- > > > Ing. Leonardo Quijano Vincenzi > > > Director Técnico > > > DTQ Software > > > > > > > > > Cosmin Bucur wrote: > > > > I know what I want sounds a bit wierd , but it would make sense using > > > > the AjaxDirectLink frfom tacos , when having a huge page with many > > > > components , to be able to refresh on a per component basis , reducing > > > > trafic and proccessing > > > > > > > > Cosmin > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
