no worries, was just a simple question ;-) but thanks for your efforts!
-Matthias On 4/27/06, Rhys Parry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 > -- Matthias Wessendorf Aechterhoek 18 48282 Emsdetten http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
