This solution basically solves my issue.
Mainly, I was wanting a way for each node to expose what its type was
and then have all the type attributes be configurable in the tag.
It looks like that's the direction you're going.
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 16:18:23 -0500, Sean Schofield
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have some more ideas in response to your initial feedback.
>
> I'm not sure that the IconProvider is necessary (although I will look
> at it in more detail tonight.) Suppose the following in your model
>
> 1) Common interface called Node
>
> 2) Two default classes that implement the Node interface, one called
> Branch and one called Leaf
>
> 3) The node interface will have getters and setters for "type" and
> description.
>
> 4.) Branch has additional methods for adding children, etc. (aka
> Composite pattern)
>
> Now in your JSP you would just configure the various icons for each
> type through the facets. Maybe we provide default icons in the
> implementation like there are now. That doesn't seem to hurt anybody
> and could save time configuring. In that case, you would not even
> need any facets (or could just override the ones you wanted to.)
>
> The next simplest case would be something like what we discussed
> before. There is no need for an Icon Provider because the images are
> configured right inside the facet. This seems to be more intuitive to
> use. Its where you configure style and other things related to the
> view so why not?
>
> <x:tree value="#{treeData}" var="node">
> <f:facet name="branch-open">
> <h:graphicImage value="/images/open-folder.gif"/>
> <h:outputText value="#{node.description}"/>
> </f:facet>
> <f:facet name="branch-closed">
> <h:graphicImage value="/images/closed-folder.gif"/>
> <h:outputText value="#{node.description}"/>
> </f:facet>
> <f:facet name="leaf">
> <h:graphicImage value="/images/document.gif"/>
> <h:commandLink immediate="true" value="#{node.description}"/>
> </f:facet>
> </x:tree-config>
> </x:tree>
>
> Then for more complicated cases (Use Case#2) you could have:
>
> <x:tree value="#{treeData}" var="node">
> <f:facet name="person-open">
> <h:graphicImage value="/images/person.gif"/>
> <h:outputText value="#{node.description}"/>
> </f:facet>
> <f:facet name="person-closed">
> <h:graphicImage value="/images/person.gif"/>
> <h:outputText value="#{node.description}"/>
> </f:facet>
> <f:facet name="foo-open">
> <h:graphicImage value="/images/yellow-folder-open.gif"/>
> <h:outputText value="#{node.description}"/>
> </f:facet>
> <f:facet name="foo-closed">
> <h:graphicImage value="/images/yellow-folder-closed.gif"/>
> <h:outputText value="#{node.description}"/>
> </f:facet>
> <f:facet name="bar-open">
> <h:graphicImage value="/images/green-folder-open.gif"/>
> <h:outputText value="#{node.description}"/>
> </f:facet>
> <f:facet name="bar-closed">
> <h:graphicImage value="/images/green-folder-closed.gif"/>
> <h:outputText value="#{node.description}"/>
> </f:facet>
> <f:facet name="leaf">
> <h:graphicImage value="/images/document.gif"/>
> <h:commandLink immediate="true" value="#{node.description}"/>
> </f:facet>
> </x:tree-config>
> </x:tree>
>
> So basically the renderer would take care of a lot things for you. It
> would ask each node if it was an instanceof branch or not (so it could
> write the appropriate javascript, etc.) Then it could ask the node
> what "type" of node it was. For leaf instances, it could look up the
> facet by the type. For branch instances, it could look up the facet
> by appending "-open" and "-closed" to the type.
>
> Heath, I'm not sure why we would need the IconProvider at all so I'm
> not sure how to respond to your suggestion. I will look more
> carefully at IconProvider tonight. I'll try to think of what it could
> give us that my approach would not.
>
> Regards,
>
> sean
>
--
-Heath Borders-Wing
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
