In case of dataTable the taglib docu says: Extended data_table that adds some additional features to the standard data_table ... so you are right to expect this, but in general if there is no significant difference there should no reason to have a component with the same name in core and tomahwak (or anywhere else). An if i decide to use the tomahawk one instead of the core one, i have to know these differences.
Or in other words: if not just this known difference is the reason to use the tomahawk component, there is no reason. just my opinion :-) Regards and good night Volker CONNER, BRENDAN (SBCSI) wrote: > I *do* expect that <t:dataTable> is a version of <h:dataTable> with > additional functionality. I don't expect it to have different defaults > for borders or background color, for example. > > - Brendan > > -----Original Message----- > From: Volker Weber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 4:29 PM > To: MyFaces Discussion > Subject: Re: curious problem with dates > > > I think no one would expect that a tomahawk componet has the same > behavior as a same named core component. So if somone uses a component > from tomahawk, which also exists in core, he should know about the > differences. > > E.g. i don't expect from <t:dataTable ...> the same behavior as from > <h:dataTable ...>. > > regards > Volker > > CONNER, BRENDAN (SBCSI) wrote: > >>Right. I was just saying that, it's one thing to explicitly add >>functionality, but it's another thing to silently alter the default >>assumptions. >> >>- Brendan >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Volker Weber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 4:00 PM >>To: MyFaces Discussion >>Subject: Re: curious problem with dates >> >> >>Yes this is correct, but the difference is between tomahawk and JSF > > spec > >>components than. >> >> >>CONNER, BRENDAN (SBCSI) wrote: >> >> >>>Oh. I was under the impression that the sandbox stuff was just a >>>preliminary step to going to Tomahawk. Sorry. >>> >>>- Brendan >>> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: Volker Weber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 3:54 PM >>>To: MyFaces Discussion >>>Subject: Re: curious problem with dates >>> >>> >>>Hi, >>> >>>CONNER, BRENDAN (SBCSI) wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>Sounds good, except that, if the JSF spec says to use GMT by default, >>>>shouldn't we keep that as the default, to be consistent with it and >>>>avoid confusion among people using different implementations? >>>> >>>>Maybe we should add support for allowing the user to specify using > > the > >>>>"server" time zone by setting an attribute value? >>>> >>> >>> >>>Switching between <f:convertDateTime .... /> (JSF spec) >>>and <s:convertDateTime .... /> (sandbox) gives the user exactly this >>>ability. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>- Brendan >>>> >>>>-----Original Message----- >>>>From: Travis Reeder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 1:43 PM >>>>To: MyFaces Discussion >>>>Subject: Re: curious problem with dates >>>> >>>> >>>>Hi all, >>>> >>>>I just checked in a sandbox converter for this that uses >>>>TimeZone.getDefault() for default timezone instead of GMT. Used same >>>>as core, but in the sandbox namespace. >>>> >>>><s:convertDateTime .... /> >>>> >>>>Travis >>>> >>> >>> >>>Regards >>> Volker >> >> > -- Don't answer to From: address! Mail to this account are droped if not recieved via mailinglist. To contact me direct create the mail address by concatenating my forename to my senders domain.
