Mailing-List: contact dev-help@myfaces.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "MyFaces Development" <dev@myfaces.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of martin.marinschek@gmail.com
 designates 64.233.184.196 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        b=taPNXOouVHBMNfb3snKRf9DTCrqg5IbRffM2vDIfskAsrL3+RKettYYQZ1dKfOOmVexaYw16KVcb6vvoAwDvHsF07HIWRWK++ThlKlSO4SjiXdM2IjLhOjG6NOis2c3oP4hbpeGqdsvbiDZZahMydvXOrcMaMwoGS4LQr+lfojg=
Message-ID: <5a99335f0601210920t3cb11773ve8caa9b03308abd1@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 18:20:45 +0100
From: Martin Marinschek <martin.marinschek@gmail.com>
Reply-To: mmarinschek@apache.org
To: MyFaces Development <dev@myfaces.apache.org>
Subject: Re: findComponent, dataTable, messages
In-Reply-To: <43D24EBA.7060702@ops.co.at>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <5a99335f0601200257t254b4b58kf838ed034460dda1@mail.gmail.com>
	 <43D0EF42.4050903@apache.org>
	 <5a99335f0601200622w7199d0f0k52b2104d86e83d2e@mail.gmail.com>
	 <43D0F414.4060204@ops.co.at>
	 <5a99335f0601200634i1cd5555etab4a512fbf074101@mail.gmail.com>
	 <43D0F679.9040000@ops.co.at>
	 <5a99335f0601210536u24e7b9ddybdd6e561684ad3a7@mail.gmail.com>
	 <43D23CF4.7010308@ops.co.at>
	 <5a99335f0601210630i530fefc5u8a561edbd7d7eebe@mail.gmail.com>
	 <43D24EBA.7060702@ops.co.at>

Yeah,

in fact I wanted to also hear feedback on the JSF-side of things. Like
- if there's anything like that already implemented in Tobago, ADF
Faces, planned for JSF 2.0.

would be interesting to hear about that.

regards,

Martin

On 1/21/06, Mario Ivankovits <mario@ops.co.at> wrote:
>
> > Yes, only for extended components. Not for API stuff.
> >
> Ok, so from now on its a matter of personal preferences.
> Personally I like to use factories/providers and so on ;-)
> In the current case it will make no difference between the various
> components just try to lookup and execute.
>
> > - a third person might want to be able to change the behaviour (I
> > don't believe they can, though, cause most of the stuff is private in
> > the components)
> >
> And this might be the strongest point why to use the marker interface,
> then the component is able to use its internal private states to do
> stuff more efficient, eventually.
>
> Said all that, I think its not that bad to use the marker stuff here.
> Only that it might lead to duplicate code if one requires the same
> traversing policy but didnt extend from the myfaces component.
> So maybe, where possible, you could create a new utility class which
> will do the hard work, in your component the implemented method is only
> a one-liner then.
>
> Whatever solution you decide to use, it wont save the world ;-)
>
> Ciao,
> Mario
>
>


--

http://www.irian.at

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

Professional Support for Apache MyFaces