Yes, I was aware of the no-duplicate id dependency. That's why I was saying that we would want to register styleId's with the view to ensure that we don't have duplicates. Obviously, if you defined a styleId on a component in a UIData, it would have to fail for the same reason that defining an id would fail.
However, here's another avenue to explore: All renderers have a method "convertClientId" which we could override in our renderers to output whatever clientId we want. In order to have this functionality, we might want to have an interface for clientId uniqueness that an extended UIViewRoot could implement. On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 14:48:08 -0800, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, 1 Jan 2005 10:56:40 -0600, Heath Borders > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > No, it is only used for uniqueness on the client-side. Component tree > > doesn't require unique id's. Id's must only be unique beneath a given > > NamingContainer. > > Actually, there *is* an important server side use of the clientId > value -- it also becomes the name of the request parameter used to > decode the values of submitted input fields. Indeed, this is why the > decode and encode functionality was merged into a single API > (Renderer) -- only the code that emits the "id" attribute knows what > the name of the corresponding request parameter will be. > > You should also note that, even if you added something like "directId" > on the MyFaces extended components, using such a component would fail > inside a UIData (or any similar component) that renders more than one > element from the same component -- the fact that the standard > components use clientId is what lets UIData get involved in the id > assignment process (since UIData is itself a naming container). > > Craig > > > On Sat, 1 Jan 2005 06:31:12 -0800 (PST), Ray Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > Is the clientId in the component used for anything > > > other than generating uniqueness for the client side > > > tag? Is it used on the server side in the processing > > > of the component tree? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Ray > > > > > > --- Heath Borders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > I'm in favor of doing this, though I don't think > > > > I'll have much time > > > > at work to dedicate to it since we're not really > > > > aching for the > > > > change. If I get some time, I'll try to do > > > > something, but I can't > > > > really commit to it. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 11:59:15 -0800, Craig McClanahan > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > If you wanted to be more familiar to Struts users, > > > > you might consider > > > > > using "styleId" instead ... that's the attribute > > > > all the Struts HTML > > > > > tags use to specify the "id" attribute to be > > > > emitted. > > > > > > > > > > Craig > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 14:47:55 -0500, Sean Schofield > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > A possible solution would be to implement > > > > direct id's (that is any id > > > > > > > specified in the JSP translates into the same > > > > client id) in the > > > > > > > MyFaces extended components. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We could provide a separate attribute on all > > > > extended components > > > > > > > called "directId". If specified, directId > > > > would be both the id and > > > > > > > the clientId. In order to ensure uniqueness, > > > > we would have to have > > > > > > > all components register their directId's with > > > > the view root. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This would allow backwards compatibility with > > > > existing code and allow > > > > > > > easy direct access to the clientId from the > > > > JSP without a separate > > > > > > > tag. > > > > > > > > > > > > That would be an extremely welcome enhancement. > > > > Although I imagine it > > > > > > would take a bit of work to get it done :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Heath Borders-Wing > > > > > > > > > > > > sean > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > -Heath Borders-Wing > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________ > > > Do you Yahoo!? > > > The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do? > > > http://my.yahoo.com > > > > > > > -- > > -Heath Borders-Wing > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -- -Heath Borders-Wing [EMAIL PROTECTED]
