On Sun, 2 Jan 2005, Sean Schofield wrote:
What the <x:script> tag would have to do is search its body content for ids specified in the <x:scriptParameter> tag and replace them with the clientId's of the components specified in the <x:scriptParameter>'s "for" attribute.
Thoughts?
I'm personally not too wild about this. Why do we want to subject the user to all of this extra coding? Its one thing if there is no other way, but it seems like we have another way (your suggestion of overriding convertClienttId() method.) This idea has some possibilities but it strikes me as not much of an improvement over the "proxy tag" idea that has been developed.
Out of curiousity, are you leaning in favor of or against the directId attribute? I detect three distinct ideas here...
#1) This is not much of a problem - do nothing #2) Allow user to specify directId/styleId attribute #3) Provide some sort of custom tag to finesse the javascript
I obviously don't agree with conclusion #1. I personally favor #2 over #3 because they will be equally difficult for us to code but #2 will require much less of the user to use (and will look much cleaner.) You've weighed in with ideas for both #2 and #3 so I was wondering what your preference was.
Where do other people stand on this? For those who don't think this is much of a problem to begin with, would either of these solutions cause prolems? Or would they be a case of unecessary effort but no harm done?
I'm definitely in the "this is a problem" camp. I would prefer #2 over #3, since it's going to make life a lot easier for the people most affected by the problem.
As far as #3 goes, note that the j4j idProxy tag generates an additional element enclosing the original content. This will likely break a lot of existing JavaScript code that "knows" the structure of what it's manipulating. Also, the <x:script> element is dropping variables in the global namespace, which is also likely to cause problems.
-- Martin Cooper
-Heath Borders-Wing
sean
