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: Re: NamingContainer.SEPARATOR_CHAR
Date Wed, 25 Jan 2006 09:05:51 GMT
Yes, you have a point here.

but in fact, autogenerated id's don't start with _, but with _id.

and if we do that, I again loose my ability to make a distinction
between a row-id and a sub-component-id :(

regards,

Martin

On 1/25/06, Simon Kitching <skitching@apache.org> wrote:
> Firstly, the format used when a table modifies the client-id to ensure
> row uniqueness is not in the spec as far as I know, so any code that
> depends on client ids of a specific layout isn't valid.
>
> Secondly, MyFaces traditionally used _rownum rather than :rownum anyway,
> and only changed to using a colon like RI after the last release. So
> changing it now is no problem as far as I can see.
>
> I agree that ":" is logical, as the per-row behaviour is very like each
> row is a NamingContainer. I also suggest that "_" on the front of the
> number is the logical behaviour (though not specified).
>
>
> On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 16:30 -0500, jacob@hookom.net wrote:
> > You don't want to massage API client ids from what exists now, that's a pretty dramatic
> > change for people that have expected those ids within the UI.
> >
> > >
> > >On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 16:12 +0100, Martin Marinschek wrote:
> > >> Ok
> > >>
> > >> I've discussed with Manfred some more, and we agreed upon the fact
> > >> that mixing the two approaches together would be the best solution.
> > >>
> > >> So you have the normal findComponent() call on a naming-container, and
> > >> if this naming container is doing something special to it's components
> > >> and it finds the referential information for setting this context up
> > >> in the client-id, we deliver back a properly initialized perspective.
> > >>
> > >> Now if we want to do some serious work on the component itself, we'll
> > >> have a "visit" or "execute" method on the perspective, with which you
> > >> can actually do the serious work on the properly initialized
> > >> component.
> > >
> > >+1.
> > >
> > >The only potential issue is code that calls findComponent then casts the
> > >result to a specific UIComponent subclass. But any such code that is
> > >passing an id with an embedded rowId in it is probably not doing what is
> > >expected at the current time anyway.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >> By the way - I've also talked to John Fallows about this - he is not
> > >> 100% d'accord, but he sees the basic problem as well. What he proposes
> > >> is a customized lifecycle, along with a filter, just like in
> > >> ADF-faces.
> > >
> > >I'd be interested in hearing more about that. Can you post a summary?
> > >
> > >
> > >I'd just like to bring up my earlier proposal again: to move to using
> > >"_{rownum}" rather than just {rownum} for the index. As the rownum is a
> > >generated id, and generated ids are required to start with "_" I think
> > >this would be the right thing to do. Example:
> > >  form1:table1:_3:component1
> > >
> > >Regards,
> > >
> > >Simon
> > >
>
>


--

http://www.irian.at

Your JSF powerhouse -
JSF Consulting, Development and
Courses in English and German

Professional Support for Apache MyFaces

Mime
View raw message