beehive-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rich Feit <richf...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [PATCH] BEEHIVE-974: Allow users to define their own tree renderer
Date Tue, 18 Oct 2005 17:34:16 GMT
I agree that having support for DI across-the-board is a good thing.  I
just think the non-loosely-coupled solution is simpler.  :)  In all
cases, there's code that has to be written (the rendering class
itself).  If you can bind to an instance, then your page flow can reuse
the same class with tweaked parameters, and can create one-off inner
classes if necessary.  It all happens in one place.

In the JSP:
    renderer="${pageFlow.treeRenderer}"

In the page flow controller:
    public TreeRenderer getTreeRenderer() {
        return new MyTreeRenderer([init values]);   // or some static
instance, or an instance inner class, whatever
    }

Contrast this with the DI solution, where you *have* to go to a wireup
file to specify parameters for some named thing.

Am I missing something here?  I just can't imagine forcing people to use
DI just to tweak the rendered output of the tree.  And if we're
proposing having an alternative way to do it, I feel that databinding to
an instance is better than writing a class name into the tag attribute.

Rich

Daryl Olander wrote:

>This is actually what we do all over the place throught the config file.
>
>The advantage of specifying the rendering class in the tag is that no code
>at all has to be written (same for DI if you ignore the definition in the
>XML file). Databinding requires writting code in every page flow if you want
>to apply a non-default rendering. That is actually heavier weight in my
>thinking. With DI (or specifying the class) no code is written in the
>PageFlow, the rendering is named and looked up. This is a much nicer
>solution to specifying the name of the class because it loosely coupled.
>Both the page flow solution and the class name as attribute are not.
>
>On 10/18/05, Rich Feit <richfeit@gmail.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>OK, I could see a layer that allowed all of these types of things to be
>>set through DI. But I also see value and simplicity in our current
>>databinding-to-instances approach. Are we saying that the *only* way to
>>control whitespace around tree elements would be to create some class
>>and wire it up through DI? This seems heavy to me -- all of a sudden
>>you *can't* just do your page editing within your page and page flow.
>>
>>If we're talking about a change across the entire tag set, could we
>>consider offering both methods (databinding and DI) in all cases?
>>
>>Rich
>>
>>Eddie O'Neil wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Ah, that's right -- this part of the tree works differently than it
>>>does in the data grid. The effect is the same -- the dependent object
>>>is referenced by some name from the tag and the tag could take care of
>>>calling out for the injection. The grid could do the same thing in
>>>that case.
>>>
>>>In order to do this, NetUI would need a generalized way of calling
>>>out to a DI implementation a la the ControlFactory abstraction.
>>>Probably worth building that as it would also give us a hook for how
>>>to wire-in ways of injecting Controls, Spring Beans, and other
>>>dependencies into Page Flows, UI elements, and so on.
>>>
>>>But, I agree that there's no reason to add more stuff to the NetUI
>>>config XML document -- this is a more scalable, flexible, and
>>>cusomizable solution.
>>>
>>>Eddie
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>On 10/18/05, Daryl Olander <dolander@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>You would bind to a named object that would be created using DI as
>>>>        
>>>>
>>described
>>    
>>
>>>>earlier in the thread. It's not injected into the tag, it's assocated
>>>>        
>>>>
>>with
>>    
>>
>>>>the Tree element through the ITreeRoot interface.
>>>>
>>>>On 10/18/05, Eddie O'Neil <ekoneil@bea.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>Agreed, that's the ultimate "right" solution here, though it's not
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>clear
>>    
>>
>>>>>where the dependency
>>>>>would be injected in the context of an arbitrary JSP tag. We can't
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>inject
>>    
>>
>>>>>this into the tag handler
>>>>>because of pooling of handlers implemented on some containers. In the
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>case
>>    
>>
>>>>>of the data grid, it
>>>>>would certainly be possible to inject it into the top-level
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>DataGridConfig
>>    
>>
>>>>>object that is used
>>>>>throughout grid rendering, but you'd still need to refer to it somehow.
>>>>>And, not all of our tags
>>>>>have that same abstraction.
>>>>>
>>>>>In lieu of DI, referencing the object is a pretty non-invasive way of
>>>>>supporting the functionality.
>>>>>
>>>>>Eddie
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Daryl Olander wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>>>I'll go back and say the right solution to these problems is
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>>Dependency
>>    
>>
>>>>>>Injection.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>On 10/18/05, Eddie O'Neil <ekoneil@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Right; the data grid does something similar with:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>><netui-data:dataGrid ... dataGridConfig="${
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>>servletContext.fooGridConfig
>>    
>>
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>>>>>}">
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>>>>...
>>>>>>></netui-data:dataGrid>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>this allows the page author to define a data grid config object that
>>>>>>>could be shared between data grids in a site as a way to provide a
>>>>>>>single point of configuration for a look & feel, pager renderer, and
>>>>>>>behavior for a type of grid. They can be shared across users by
>>>>>>>putting them into ServletContext.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>So, there's precedent for doing it this way, and it's worked out
>>>>>>>pretty well. :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Eddie
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On 10/18/05, Rich Feit <richfeit@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Right, I was suggesting something like this:
>>>>>>>>renderer=${pageFlow.treeRenderer}
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Often it wouldn't need to be connected to instance state, but that
>>>>>>>>doesn't strike me as out of bounds. And it would line up better with
>>>>>>>>the way we do things elsewhere (e.g., the way you bind to the tree
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>                
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>itself).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Rich
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Daryl Olander wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>                
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I guess I'm not following this, you can do something like
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>                  
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>renderClass="${
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>pageFlow.treeRenderer}" where tree renderer is a string to the
>>>>>>>>>                  
>>>>>>>>>
>>class.
>>    
>>
>>>>>>>>>                  
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Are
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>you suggesting that this actually be an instance of TreeRenderer?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On 10/17/05, Rich Feit <richfeit@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>                  
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I agree on both counts. My main question at this point is, should
>>>>>>>>>>                    
>>>>>>>>>>
>>we
>>    
>>
>>>>>>>>>>use databinding instead? Having the classname in the tag attribute
>>>>>>>>>>seems strange to me... and at the very least it's not a pattern
>>>>>>>>>>                    
>>>>>>>>>>
>>that
>>    
>>
>>>>>>>>>>                    
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>we
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>use consistently across the tag set.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Daryl Olander wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                    
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Actually, my opinion is that we should use some type of
>>>>>>>>>>>                      
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>Dependency
>>    
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Injection, but currently there is no dependencies on things like
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>                      
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Spring,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>and
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                    
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>I don't think this feature is significant enough to push us in
>>>>>>>>>>>                      
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>that
>>    
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>direction. If we had a bunch of these type behavior (which I
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>                      
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>actually
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>                      
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>think
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                    
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>we do) then I'd prefer a design that used a name that was looked
>>>>>>>>>>>                      
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>up
>>    
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>                      
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>through
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                    
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>dependency injection. I just don't think adding this type of
>>>>>>>>>>>                      
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>stuff
>>    
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>                      
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>to
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>netui-config file as a general solution is a good thing. We do
>>>>>>>>>>>                      
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>have
>>    
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>                      
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>attribute to set the renderer for the full webapp in there, but I
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>                      
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>don't
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>want
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                    
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>to start pushing DI behavior into it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On 10/17/05, Rich Feit <richfeit@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>                      
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>I have one quick (and general) question to ask here. Are we all
>>>>>>>>>>>>comfortable with having classnames in tag attributes (vs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>                        
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>databinding to
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>objects when necessary, and otherwise controlling rendering
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>                        
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>through
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>normal value attributes)? It strikes me as strange, but I
>>>>>>>>>>>>                        
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>haven't
>>    
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>                        
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>come
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>up with a hard argument against it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>In general, is this something we want to do? Does anyone else
>>>>>>>>>>>>                        
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>have
>>    
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>                        
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>same reaction to this? One alternative is to require databinding
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>                        
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>to
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>some object that provides the right functionality.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>In any case, I think we should decide this and be consistent
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>                        
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>across
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>board.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Rich
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Carlin Rogers wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>                        
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>I created a JIRA issue to cover the changes discussed earlier
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>this
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>month
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                    
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>in
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>                        
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>the dev alias about allowing control of formatting and white
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>space
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>>>>in
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                    
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>NetUI tree rendering. The outcome I came away with was to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>provide
>>    
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>a
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>>>>way
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>to
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>                        
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>override the default NetUI TreeRenderer implementation. The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>following
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>is
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                    
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>a
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>                        
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>description I included in the JIRA issue along with a patch.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>...First off, I refactored the TreeRenderer class and its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>render()
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>method
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                    
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>so
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>                        
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>that it can more easily be extended allowing simple overrides
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>of
>>    
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>methods
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                    
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>that format and control white space surrounding the elements
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>that
>>    
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>make
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>up
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                    
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>the markup for a tree node. There are now prefix and suffix
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>routines
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>used
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                    
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>to
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>                        
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>append formatting (or additional markup if desired) around each
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>of
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>components in the markup of a node.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>The <netui:tree> tag has been modified to include a new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>attribute
>>    
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>for
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>setting a desired TreeRenderer to use on the given tree. In
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>addition,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                    
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>beehive-netui-config schema, ConfigUtil, JspTagConfig, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>TagConfig
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>classes
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>                        
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>have been modified such that NetUI can be configured with a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>different
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>default tree renderer, extending the NetUI TreeRenderer, for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>the
>>    
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Web
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>application. It is an optional configuration and the config has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>our
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>TreeRenderer as a default value. This gives an app developer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>two
>>    
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>options.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                    
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>They can override the NetUI TreeRenderer for the entire
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>application
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>>>>and
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>override it on a tree by tree bases. A renderer named in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>><netui:tree>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                    
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>tag attribute will always be used regardless of the renderer in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>the
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>NetUI
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                    
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>configuration.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>The TreeRenderer used to have some package protected derived
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>classes
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>used
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                    
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>for handling issues specific to the execution of NetUI code
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>path.
>>    
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>There
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>was
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>                        
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>a renderer for the actual tag and a servlet version for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>XmlHttpRequest
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>                        
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>via the TreeCRI. Instead of having two different renderers and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>worrying
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>how
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>                        
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>or if they'd be extended and the desired special handling would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>be
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>managed,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>                        
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>this functionality was moved down to a TreeRenderSupport object
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>that
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>was
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                    
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>set
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>                        
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>on a given TreeRenderer. Then, no matter the TreeRenderer, we'd
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>delegate
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>                    
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>                        
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>special handling to either of two subclasses of the support
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>object
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>>>>to
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>handle
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>                        
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>tag or XmlHttpRequest specific issues... such as error
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>reporting.
>>    
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>The patch also includes a new test to ensure the renderer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>overriding
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>works
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>                        
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>for runAtClient and expandOnServer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>In reviewing this patch...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>- Do I need to expose more of the TreeRenderer data and methods
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>as
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>protected
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>                        
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>rather than private to allow for better sub classing?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>- How or will we version the netui config schema in v1.1 to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>manage
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>new
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>                        
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>optional element?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Carlin
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>                          
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>                      
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>                  
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>
>  
>

Mime
View raw message