+1
Heath Borders wrote:
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
--
Travis Reeder
Ecommstats Web Analytics
www.ecommstats.com
|
