Its clear that there are two different ways that we could possibly need better id support, and that's why we should develop #2 and #3 together.
#2 supports legacy code. #3 supports new code. #1 (do nothing) can obviously still exist. If people want to totally ignore these features, that's fine. Let Darwin decide, as Craig said. On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 08:09:37 -0800 (PST), Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 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 > >> > >> > > > -- -Heath Borders-Wing [EMAIL PROTECTED]
