I am an ass. I would love to. I cannot share the version I developed for the company without asking the big guy, however, if he says no I will write my own and share. Give me a few days ( weekend ) and I will post something before monday.
Rhys -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Matthias Wessendorf Sent: April 27, 2006 2:51 PM To: MyFaces Discussion Subject: Re: Help me understand component lifecycle please. why not sharing in public? On 4/27/06, Rhys Parry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ben, > > If you wouold like to take this off-line I can share my knowledge on the > subject. In the end I created a bunch of aspects ( compile time aspectJ > (although runtime would be preferable)) that should not be a problem to use. > > If you would like email me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Rhys Parry > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Neuman, Ben J., A&M IRM [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: April 27, 2006 2:43 PM > To: 'MyFaces Discussion' > Subject: RE: Help me understand component lifecycle please. > > > Rhys, I think you hit the nail on the head. You can't get the component > during the initial render response phase. The workarounds seem like an awful > lot of work for my needs. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rhys Parry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 2:40 PM > To: MyFaces Discussion > Subject: RE: Help me understand component lifecycle please. > > > All, > > I know I am joining this discussion late, however, I just went through the > painful process of writing my own component library because I could not get > the components during the render response phase. My idea was that I should > be able to get the component id and based on that do some additional > security checking. If it fails then set rendered = false. It would be > clean. However. . . no go. > > >>However, it's also possible to configure it by using a binding > >>attribute -- you bind the attribute to a backing bean, and then, > >>depending on whether you use set or get, you can either modify the > >>preconstructed component, or create your own version of the component > >>yourself. > Did that and it is more work than I had hoped. > > Also cluttering my code with > <sometag value="..." isRendered="{bean.method}"/> > > and then > class SomeBean > { > public boolean isMethod() > { > //do some boilerplate stuff > } > } > > seems like a lot of replicated redundant code. > > A thought I had was that it would be nice if we could set up a > JSFRenderCallbackHandler. This object would be configured in the > faces-config.xml file and would be called during the isRendered phase of the > component lifecycle passing in the component as its arg. . . or the id(?). > This would remove the boilerplate and not force developers to write a > component library. Also a JSFDisabledCallbackHandler would be nice. > > My 2 cents, > > Rhys > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Neuman, Ben J., A&M IRM [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: April 27, 2006 2:15 PM > To: 'MyFaces Discussion' > Subject: RE: Help me understand component lilfecycle please. > > > Not sure I understand. Are you referring to the binding of a component's > attribute to a backing bean? Or the binding of the component itself to a > backing bean? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mike Kienenberger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 12:24 PM > To: MyFaces Discussion > Subject: Re: Help me understand component lilfecycle please. > > > On 4/27/06, Neuman, Ben J., A&M IRM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Got it. It makes sense to me to "disregard" unrendered components during > > phase-processing code. I guess I have issues with the inability to modify > > components before the initial rendering. Still feel this is a spec > weakness. > > Well, you "configure" a component by specifying attributes. > > However, it's also possible to configure it by using a binding > attribute -- you bind the attribute to a backing bean, and then, > depending on whether you use set or get, you can either modify the > preconstructed component, or create your own version of the component > yourself. > > Sorry I didn't point this out earlier as this might be what you wanted. > -- Matthias Wessendorf Aechterhoek 18 48282 Emsdetten http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
