Both #2 and #3 will provide solutions to this problem. For #2, you can just give all the components you need the proper styleIds and then you can access them from wherever you want.
For #3, you have to pass all of the components as parameters to the <x:script /> tag, but you can still pass in as many as you'd like. On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 05:49:23 -0800 (PST), Ray Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I haven't had time to fully catch up on this thread, so I hope I am not > stating something that has already been said. > > My problem/concern about any JavaScript solution is cross field JavaScript. > I need the ability with any of these solutions to manipulate a different > element from the one that called the JavaScript funtion. For instance, I > have an onChange event for 1 element change the HTML/CSS of another element. > Or what about a JavaScript that gets called on page submit to do something. > There absolutely has to be a way to easily get the id of elements other > than the one that invoked the function. So just having the component pass > in a reference to the element to the function won't satisfy my needs. > > I'm sure all of you are aware of this. I just wanted to stress the point > one more time. > > I appreciate all of the effort and thought for this. This IS an issue that > people here would use to discourage the use of JSF. > > Thanks, > Ray > > Sean Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The whole point of using something like > > JSF is that you are moving away from writing direct html code. In the long > > run, every single thing on your page should be a JSF component, including > > the script portions. > > I don't see myself writing all of my javascript via components anytime > soon. IMO this would be overkill. Javascript is already difficult to > maintain and follow, why add more complexity if you can avoid it? > > Yes I can envision myself starting to write more of the javascript in > components now that faces is here. Certainly not all of it and not > until I decide to switch my project to JSF (and even then, I will be > converting a little bit at a time) > > > I think the should be used even if it > > doesn't do anything other than output a > > ________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. Learn more. > > -- -Heath Borders-Wing [EMAIL PROTECTED]
