myfaces-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Martin Marinschek <martin.marinsc...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [Myfaces-develop] New feature suggestion : Edit mode
Date Wed, 04 May 2005 06:13:20 GMT
but that is a flag with a meaning for the html tags, it is written
through to the html output - I don't think we should tamper with those
tags.

regards,

Martin

On 5/4/05, Korhonen, Kalle <kkorhone@cisco.com> wrote:
>  
> Shouldn't we rather use the standard "readonly" attribute for this, as
> specified in JSF RI? 
>   
> Kalle 
>   
>  
> readonlyfalsefalsejava.lang.String Flag indicating that this component will
> prohibit changes by the user. The element may receive focus unless it has
> also been disabled. 
>  
>  
>  ________________________________
>  From: Sylvain Vieujot [mailto:svieujot@apache.org] 
> Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 6:53 PM
> To: dev@myfaces.apache.org
> Subject: Fwd: [Myfaces-develop] New feature suggestion : Edit mode
> 
>  
> Quite sometimes ago, we discussed on adding an editMode attribute the
> meaningful x: components.
> The explanation for this is in the forwarded email discussion bellow.
> 
> To summarize what it's about :
> <x:inputText ... editMode="true"> renders as the standard input box
> <x:inputText ... editMode="false"> renders as an x:outputText
> 
> I now need those features, and would like to implement them (have them
> implemented).
> So, I would like to check everyone still agrees with this.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Sylvain.
> 
> Subject: Re: [Myfaces-develop] New feature suggestion : Edit mode
> Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 10:51:39 -0400
> One more precision :
> I didn't dig into the role based access -- used in disabled for example --
> right now.
> Maybe we have to think for one minute about the integration of this with
> editMode.
> 
> As of now, I think it works well :
> editMode == true => standard behavior
> editMode == false => renders as output anyway.
> 
> But as I'm not sure I fully understand the MyFaces roles right now, maybe
> I'm wrong or there is something smarter to do.
> 
> Sylvain.
> 
> On Fri, 2004-07-30 at 10:12, Sylvain Vieujot wrote: 
>  
> Yes, that's it.
> 
> I also think that the editmode attribute is better (in fact editMode as I
> think this is the convention, like for actionListener).
> 
> Thanks for your feedback.
> 
> Sylvain.
> 
> On Fri, 2004-07-30 at 03:22, Manfred Geiler wrote: 
> Hi,
> Just a short summarize of your suggestion, so that I'm sure that I got 
> it right:
> - we indroduce a new attribute "edit" (or "editmode") for all extended 
> input components (x: tags)
> - default value of this attribute is true
> - value of true does not change rendering
> - value of false renders an output (normal html text) instead of an 
> input (html input tag)
> 
> Ok, her is my vote:
> +1 for such an attribute
> +.4 for name "edit"
> +.6 for name "editmode"
> 
> Regards,
> Manfred
> 
> 
> Sylvain Vieujot wrote:
> > *Feedback requested on implementing a new edit attribute for the x: tags :
> > *
> > I used to program a lot with Notes/Domino, and Domino has a very nice 
> > feature :
> > You design a form, and the you use it either in read or edit mode.
> > In read mode, you just see the fields contents (i.e. h:outputText in 
> > JSF), and in edit mode, you have the corresponding input field (i.e. 
> > h:inputText(area) in JSF).
> > 
> > This is a very useful feature that really help to quicken the development.
> > In JSF right now, as far as I know, you either have to design 2 forms : 
> > one for read mode, and one for edit mode, or (especially if the access 
> > can be different for each field) like here :
> > 
> > <h:inputText value="#{order.client}" size="50"
> rendered="#{editMode.edit}"/>
> > <h:outputText value="#{order.client}" rendered="#{! editMode.edit}"/>
> > 
> > I think it would be way easier to add an *edit* attribute to the x: 
> > tags, that would reduce the upper code to :
> > 
> > <x:inputText value="#{order.client}" size="50" *edit*="#{editMode.edit}"/>
> > 
> > For sure, you can use the disabled attribute, but here, you wouldn't 
> > have the text in a disabled box, but you would see it clear which is 
> > much nicer.
> > For the x:dateInput tag that I just did, it would also look nicer to see 
> > a clean text with the date/time instead of all the input fields/combo
> boxes.
> > For the x:fileUpload also, it would allow to display the file name and 
> > maybe render the file in case the edit attribute is set to false.
> > 
> > In the current MyFaces exemples, for the dataTable.jsf example, if you 
> > want to edit all the countries, you also have to design a new form.
> > I think with an edit attribute, we could avoid the countryTableForm.jsf, 
> > and have only one form.
> > 
> > I also need a wiki style input tag where in edit mode, you enter text 
> > with wiki like formating, and in read mode, you just see the formated
> text.
> > In such cases, the edit (or whatever we choose to name it) attribute is 
> > mandatory.
> > 
> > So, my question is :
> > Would you agree that we implement a standard edit attribute for all the 
> > x: tags where it's relevant ?
> > 
> > And as you might guess, I think it would really be a big plus for 
> > MyFaces as it would dramatically improve and simplify some developments.
> > 
> > Thanks for your feedback.
> > 
> > Sylvain.
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.Net email is sponsored by OSTG. Have you noticed the changes on
> Linux.com, ITManagersJournal and NewsForge in the past few weeks? Now,
> one more big change to announce. We are now OSTG- Open Source Technology
> Group. Come see the changes on the new OSTG site. www.ostg.com
> _______________________________________________
> Myfaces-develop mailing list
> Myfaces-develop@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/myfaces-develop
> 
>

Mime
View raw message