Sean,
I'm open to any ideas and any changes. The tree component was born with a very specific usage scenario in mind and for a very specific application. It covers very well the needs of said application, but of course there are other usage scenarios it does not cover yet. One question I remember having been asked a few times on the list was how to fire an action on node selection. At the moment you have to use/implement a listener, but using facets as you suggested this will become very simple and straightforward.
So if you come up with a great idea I'm the first one to take it. Criticize, suggest, improve, make it a washing machine or microwave :-) I won't take it personal. Just let's go on with this thread and collect ideas and feature requests. The javascript stuff of expanding the tree in the browser is definitely yours as my javascript skills don't go that far. But for the rest I'll help with backgrounds for the current implementation and with as much development time as possible.
Oliver
Sean Schofield wrote:
I think all the features from your proposal can be implemented based on
the current tree component. I will not stop you from starting your tree
component from scratch, but with some refactorings and extensions we can
get the current tree to support client-side node expansion or facets
with less effort. What do you think?
If you are willing to work with us and are willing to make some changes to your existing tree (which it sounds like you are), then I would be willing to try it. You've obviously given a lot of thought to this and if we combine our individual experiences working with these trees, I think the end result would probably be better than what either of us could come up with by ourselves.
I have some issues with the existing Tree component and it sounds like you are acknowledging there is room for improvement. As I've stated before the biggest problem is the lack of client-side scripting. My second problem is that its not immediately obvious how to configure the tree. My first impression at looking at the codebase was that it was a bit much for what I needed/.
I'd like to see if we could simplify things where possible. There are probably things that at first appear to me to be unecessary but that you will probably be able to convince me to keep once I know what they're for. If you are willing to have someone take a second look at some of the original design then I think we can live with modifying the existing codebase instead of starting over.
I definitely think you have some good ideas in the original design and also you've already given me some good ideas in your comments in this thread so I look forward to working with you (and others) on this. .
Oliver
sean
-- Oliver Rossmueller Software Engineer and IT-Consultant Hamburg, Germany http://www.rossmueller.com
