Wow - I'm really amazed at the reaction I'm getting here. Let me boil it down for everyone:
1) I wasn't allowed to introduce a new JSF UI framework into the architecture. Tomahawk was it. 2) It seems only Richfaces has a combobox component. If writing one is so easy as everyone here seems to be implying, why is that? 3) The Richfaces combobox component was only introduced in the 3.2.x versions. Richfaces 3.2 and above require at least a JSF 1.2 implementation. I'm stuck with MyFaces 1.1, like many corporate developers out there. 4) Writing my own combobox component that could come close to the functionality of the ExtJS combobox would not only be reinventing the wheel, but would also have consumed a lot more than 16 hours. If you can do it in 30 minutes, prove it. Then give your code to Icefaces, Tomahawk, and Facelets because apparently they could use it. If I'm wrong with any of what I've stated above, feel free to correct me. I am really wondering why this community seems to be so hostile to using another UI library to fix what seems to be a gaping hole in the JSF UI component cadre. Did I step into a "vi vs emacs" type holy war here? Mike Kienenberger wrote: > > Rather than spend 16 hours on a hack, why not spend 30 minutes writing > a component? Custom components aren't part of "the framework". > They're part of your code. It's a natural extension point for JSF > application code. > > If you're using JSF, writing custom components is part of "working for > a living", just like writing validators and actions is part of writing > a struts application. It's kinda like complaining you have to write > action methods for your UICommands. > > Yes, it takes a few more minutes to write a real component (or fake > one up in facelets), but once you do it, it's there to be used for all > time, trivially. > > -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/JSF-Combo-Box-for-MyFaces-1.1---one-humble-developer%27s-solution-tp27150321p27154397.html Sent from the MyFaces - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
