I believe I am with Brendan on this. Let's give it an attribute.
regards, Martin On 11/1/05, Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That's a good point. If the *defaults* for t:convertDateTime (currently > s:convertDateTime) are different than f:convertDateTime then perhaps it > should have a different name, eg > t:convertLocalDateTime > or > t:altConvertDateTime > > New functionality is expected, but operations inherited from the parent > tag working *differently* could well surprise people. > > Regards, > > Simon > > Volker Weber wrote: > > 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. > > -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Trainings in English and German
