I don't have too much time, so if you want to give it a try, I would be very thankful ;)
regards, Martin On 7/5/05, Paul Klaer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ah :-) I hope you had good days at java one... Thanks for your fast answer. > > Yes, I think you're right, than we need a hole marker for this feature. > I think this is a good approach. > > What do you think when you have time to extend the source code? If you > don't have much time maybe I could do try to implement this first and > send the code to you... > > Regards > > Martin Marinschek wrote: > > Yes, I have seen it - sorry to not write back, I have been to the Java > > One Conference in between. > > > > I believe the thing with the marker is necessary - imagine you would > > want to add a custom javascript function to the component > > additionally, this would need to be in there always. > > > > regards, > > > > Martin > > > > On 7/4/05, Paul Klaer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>Hi Martin, > >> > >>sorry, I didn't answered very fast but did you noticed my mail in the > >>meantime on the users list? > >> > >>Regards > >>Paul > >> > >>Paul Klaer wrote: > >> > >>>I think the marker would be appropriate for this needs under this > >>>conditions. > >>> > >>>But, first time I saw the code I was asking me: Why do you need on each > >>>component the call for the JS method of all components? > >>> > >>>If a user changes a value for the component textbox then you always > >>>change the hidden parameter (or something else) for this component, but > >>>not for all other components... > >>> > >>>Wouldn't be enough to have only one call for the js method > >>>"orgApacheMyfacesJsListenerSetExpressionProperty...."? > >>> > >>>Best Regards > >>> > >>>Paul > >>> > >>>Martin Marinschek wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>>Yes, > >>>> > >>>>you are absolutely right, that is a problem. > >>>> > >>>>Sorry, I didn't have a need so far to fix that, and no time available > >>>>to do so right now, but I might have time to discuss it with you and > >>>>to try to find a solution. > >>>> > >>>>One thing I was thinking about originally was to have this javascript > >>>>call surrounded by a marker and at the beginning of the encode end, > >>>>remove everything that is surrounded by this marker. > >>>> > >>>>Would you think this approach is appropriate? > >>>> > >>>>regards, > >>>> > >>>>Martin > >> > >> > >
