On Mon, 3 Jan 2005, Martin Marinschek wrote:
well, what I meant is that in fact the html is almost completely generated in the JSF case, so there usually is so much change in the structure and layout of the HTML code that you almost certainly need to rewrite large portions of your javascript anyways; fine though if that is not true in your case ...
Consider the case in which I want to create a set of JSF components that essentially wrap the widgets from an existing JavaScript framework, to make them easier to use in a JSF environment. The JavaScript framework almost certainly wants a great deal of control over the resulting HTML. Changing the JavaScript framework so that it can be made to work with JSF isn't something that's likely to happen, since (a) the people developing the framework and the people wrapping widgets in JSF components are not likely to be the same people, and (b) the changes would quite possibly break existing uses of the framework.
-- Martin Cooper
you find the usage for the jsValueChangeListener component in the examples section of the myfaces example webapp, plus I wrote an e-mail about that not too long ago (should be available somewhere in the archive).
regards,
Martin
On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 09:12:27 -0500, Sean Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:moving your web-application from one framework to another though will always include some handling of javascript/html, so I wouldn't weigh that in too much.
I'm not so sure about that. Maybe you change a few pieces of javascript (like when switching to Struts maybe you open a window with foo.do instead of foo.jsp) but you shouldn't have to change huge portions of it.
The end result of any web application is HTML. If you switch to faces, why should you have to rewrite all of your javascript? Why should it matter to the person who wrote the javascript that you are now producing your HTML in a new way?
if you have a problem with that, you will need to implement something coming close to a direct id (or having someone doing that for you ;)
I definitely have a problem with that (as you have probably guessed.) And I've been following discussions elsewhere about this, and I am definitely not alone. I say we fix it as long as there are more than a few people affected negatively by this constraint (and as long as the fix does not ruin things for everyone else.)
what about my other suggestion?
I'm not familiar with jsValueChange listener (although it sounds interesting.) I didn't see it on the component page of the website, so I will try to find out something from the source code when I get home (no external CVS here at work.)
Martin
sean
