Simon, you are correct. The portal would be able to push a parameter to
Trinidad. Always in a portal environment the skin is uncompressed so
that is also not an issue. But currently changing the stylesheet
provided by the Portal is a modification that needs to be made to the
portal itself. I think that's where Martin is coming from. An
unmodified portal container doesn't look very good when displaying faces
and forcing every portal container to provide a skin that is not based
off a standard is not going to be very successful in the general case.
I totally agree with this, but we're sort of between a rock and a hard
place. :)
Simon Lessard wrote:
Not really, I think we detect a specific parameter pushed by the
container. So only container supporting skinning would push it,
effectively synchronizing all portlet LaF. For other container I think
we simply use the normal code path... That or I had some serious
hallucinations in the past months and imagined all this...
On 7/26/07, *Martin Marinschek* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
Hi Simon,
well, but this would then be portlet container dependent, right? You'd
effectively need to implement trinidad skinning in every portlet
container.
regards,
Martin
On 7/26/07, Simon Lessard < [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
> Personally, I don't see why the portal should not be able to
provide all
> selectors.
>
> Aren't we just not compressing the selector names when we detect
a portal
> environment or did I miss something? I think that strategy
cannot provides
> the icons though.
>
>
> On 7/26/07, Martin Marinschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
> > Does the portlet container really provide every styleclass that is
> > necessary for Trinidad components to look like they normally look?
> >
> > I'm just thinking that what is currently being done is not
enough to
> > have the full skinning features available, and that going the
> > direction of adding the CSS dynamically would allow to do so.
> >
> > regards,
> >
> > Martin
> >
> > On 7/26/07, Scott O'Bryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
> > > Hey Martin,
> > >
> > > Does the simple-portlet skin render any better? I *THINK*
that when
> > > running in a portal environment you always get the
simple-portlet skin
> > > unless your portal provides one of the necessary skin
extensions which,
> > > right now, it trinidad proprietary. Maybe this is just a
case of us
> > > needing to bug-fix the portlet skin.
> > >
> > > That article is interesting, but I think that Trinidad has
attempted to
> > > do the same thing only in a different way. Instead of using
javascript
> > > to copy in the styles, we actually change the class names
that get
> > > rendered on the client to use the portal styles where
appropriate.
> > > Still, I'm not sure that this has been tested extensively
because before
> > > we started looking at 301, much of Trinidad's portal work
has been done
> > > with a Proof of Concept environment.
> > >
> > > Scott
> > >
> > > Martin Marinschek wrote:
> > > > After playing around for a while and finally finding out
that it was
> > > > as easy as setting:
> > > >
> > > > <skin-family>simple</skin-family>
> > > >
> > > > in the trinidad-config.xml I got skinning to run in the
portlet
> > > > environment. In the end, I'm not very happy with what I
see, though.
> > > >
> > > > I'm attaching a screenshot - basically, not much change
happens by
> > > > applying skinning - obviously due to the fact that the portlet
> > > > containers don't offer many default style-class hooks.
> > > > Have I been getting this wrong or does it really look like
this?
> > > >
> > > > If I have been doing the right thing, wouldn't it be nice
to have a
> > > > way of adding the stylesheet with javascript dynamically
in the body?
> > > >
> > > > Something like this:
> > > >
> > > >
>
http://cse-mjmcl.cse.bris.ac.uk/blog/2005/08/18/1124396539593.html
<http://cse-mjmcl.cse.bris.ac.uk/blog/2005/08/18/1124396539593.html>
> > > >
> > > > might be in order to have full skinning available, and
still be
> > > > standards compliant.
> > > >
> > > > I'd implement this in a component, if nobody has better
ideas...
> > > >
> > > > regards,
> > > >
> > > > Martin
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > http://www.irian.at
> >
> > Your JSF powerhouse -
> > JSF Consulting, Development and
> > Courses in English and German
> >
> > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
> >
>
>
--
http://www.irian.at
Your JSF powerhouse -
JSF Consulting, Development and
Courses in English and German
Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
