Hi Simon, Scott,
I've made skinning work now in any container - this is the code that
I've used, for other users as a reference. We should carry on the
discussion if and how to integrate this into Trinidad itself, though.
regards,
Martin
--------------------
use a binding attribute on your tr:form:
<tr:form id="helloForm" binding="#{personPage.form}">
provide a getter for this form in your backing-bean:
public CoreForm getForm() {
CoreForm coreForm = new MyCoreForm();
return coreForm;
}
write the class MyCoreForm, extending Trinidad's CoreForm - with that,
you should be good.
public static class MyCoreForm extends CoreForm {
@Override
public void encodeBegin(FacesContext context) throws IOException {
StyleContext styleContext = ((CoreRenderingContext)
RenderingContext.getCurrentInstance()).getStyleContext();
String uri =
styleContext.getStyleProvider().getStyleSheetURI(styleContext);
String contextUri =
context.getExternalContext().getRequestContextPath();
String baseURL = contextUri + XhtmlConstants.STYLES_CACHE_DIRECTORY;
String finalUri = context.getExternalContext
().encodeResourceURL(baseURL+uri);
StringBuffer buf = new StringBuffer();
buf.append("<script type=\"text/javascript\">\n" +
"\n" +
"//<![CDATA[\n" +
"\n" +
"if(document.createStyleSheet) {\n" +
"\n" +
"document.createStyleSheet('"+finalUri+"');\n" +
"\n" +
"}\n" +
"\n" +
"else {\n" +
"\n" +
"var styles = \"@import url('"+finalUri+"');\";\n" +
"\n" +
"var newSS=document.createElement('link');\n" +
"\n" +
"newSS.rel='stylesheet';\n" +
"\n" +
"newSS.href='"+finalUri+"';\n" +
"\n" +
"document.getElementsByTagName(\"head\")[0].appendChild(newSS);\n" +
"\n" +
"}\n" +
"\n" +
"//]]>\n" +
"\n" +
"</script>");
context.getResponseWriter().write(buf.toString());
super.encodeBegin(context);
}
}
On 7/26/07, Simon Lessard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thus linking Portal-Trinidad users to specific portal vendor(s)... Ok, I see
> the issue now... bleh...
>
>
> On 7/26/07, Scott O'Bryan < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 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
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
--
http://www.irian.at
Your JSF powerhouse -
JSF Consulting, Development and
Courses in English and German
Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
