Re: New tag attribute (styleId/directId/etc.) aka Solution #2

[Bill Dudney]

Hi All,
I'm reluctant to add anything to the tags that is not part of the spec. 
Adding this to the extended components would be fine (i.e. x:inputText) 
but I'd rather not see it added to the h: components.

What are others thoughts on this?
TTFN,
=bd=
On Jan 5, 2005, at 7:10 PM, Ray Clark wrote:
I agree the force is not meaningfull enough.  I like
the other attribute names that have been proposed.
Thanks,
Ray
--- Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On Tue, 4 Jan 2005, Sean Schofield wrote:
I wanted to kick off a new thread dedicated to my
proposed solution
that would allow the JSP developer to indicate
whether they wanted to
"force" the use of the id attribute supplied
(instead of using the one
generated by the component.)
The first thing is to square away the name of the
attribute.  It has
been suggested that we could use an attribute
named "directId" or
"styleId".  StyleId would be in keeping with
Struts but I personally
allways found that to be confusing.
After thinking about it, I concluded that we
probably don't want
either of those choices because they would
necessitate writing the id
twice.
ex. <h:input id='foo' ... directId='foo' />
... Or sometimes using id and sometimes using
directId.
I think a better alternative is to have an
attribute that is
true/false.  I would suggest either one of the
following
"override","overrideId", "force", "forceId".
ex. <h:input id='foo'  ... force='true'/>
My personal vote is for 'force'.  Do people agree
with the true/false
approach?  If so, which attribute name do you
think we should use?
The approach is fine, but I don't like 'force'
because it says nothing
about what it applies to. I'd prefer 'forceId' or
maybe even 'useIdAsIs'.
--
Martin Cooper

TIA,
sean


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com