myfaces-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Andrew Robinson" <andrew.rw.robin...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: svn commit: r576576 [1/3] - in /myfaces/trinidad/trunk/trinidad: trinidad-build/src/main/resources/META-INF/maven-faces-plugin/components/trinidad/core/ trinidad-impl/src/main/java/org/apache/myfaces/trinidadinternal/renderkit/core/xhtml/ trinida
Date Wed, 19 Sep 2007 21:51:52 GMT
On the vote for set a facet = no icons, someone could easily:

<tr:statusIndicator>
<f:facet name="busy"><tr:outputText value="busy"/></f:facet>
<f:facet name="read"><tr:icon name="..." /></f:facet>
</tr:statusIndicator>

This way they can sill use the icon. Just requires more typing

On 9/19/07, Adam Winer <awiner@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/19/07, Perkins, Nate-P63196 <Nate.Perkins@gdc4s.com> wrote:
> > Yes, but why pollute the page unnecessarily with an empty outputText?
>
> Indeed.  (I'd probably use a tr:group, but same deal).
>
> The flip side is wondering how much of a pain it'd be to
> implement "I want to change the ready icon, but not the busy icon"
> if we go with "set either facet, both icons are gone".  Either design
> makes someone's life hard...  which do we think is more common?
>
> > If I approach the subject from a maintainability perspective, I think
> > its more intuitive for the documentation to state why the icon is gone
> > then to have to figure out why some developer stuck an empty outputText
> > into a facet.
>
> Anyone hacking in either case does have the option of
> including a comment in the page, ya know!
>
> -- Adam
>
> >
> > I've been watching this thread, so I hope you don't mind my 2 cents....
> >
> >
> > Nate Perkins
> > General Dynamics C4 Systems
> >
> > >This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
> > may contain GDC4S
> > > confidential or privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
> > disclosure or distribution
> > > is prohibited. If you are not an intended recipient, please contact
> > the sender by reply email and
> > > destroy all copies of the original message.
> > >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Adam Winer [mailto:awiner@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 9:24 AM
> > To: MyFaces Development
> > Subject: Re: svn commit: r576576 [1/3] - in
> > /myfaces/trinidad/trunk/trinidad:
> > trinidad-build/src/main/resources/META-INF/maven-faces-plugin/components
> > /trinidad/core/
> > trinidad-impl/src/main/java/org/apache/myfaces/trinidadinternal/renderki
> > t/core/xhtml/ trinida
> >
> > OK, five seconds more consideration, and now I'm torn.
> > It's easy enough to write:
> >
> >   <tr:statusIndicator>
> >      <f:facet name="busy">Loading...</f:facet>
> >      <f:facet name="ready"><tr:outputText/></f:facet>
> >   </tr:statusIndicator>
> >
> > ... which would have the same effect.  So I could really
> > go either way.
> >
> > -- Adam
> >
> > On 9/19/07, Adam Winer <awiner@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I see what you're saying...  I think I'd be OK then with a rule
> > > where specifying either facet gets rid of both icons.  Especially
> > > with a bit of doc explaining why it does that (exactly the example
> > > you give).
> > >
> > > -- Adam
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 9/19/07, Simon Lessard <simon.lessard.3@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Hello Adam,
> > > >
> > > > On 9/18/07, Adam Winer <awiner@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > I think it should be as simple as for each of "busy" and
> > > > > "ready", render the facet if it's present, the icon if it's not.
> > > >
> > > > The only issue with that behavior is most common usage. I think the
> > most
> > > > common usage with facets is going to be a "busy" facet and no
> > "ready" (to
> > > > mimic GMail behavior for example). Personally, that's the way I
> > would use
> > > > it. If that's really the most common case, then it should be "as
> > soon as a
> > > > facet is specified, rendered or not, no icon will be rendered". But,
> > if we
> > > > think the most common case is going to be with both facets, then I
> > agree
> > > > with your suggestion.
> > > >
> > > > ~ Simon
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > -- Adam
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 9/18/07, Simon Lessard < simon.lessard.3@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Hmm not as simple as I though. Before pushing a patch let decide
> > on the
> > > > > > behavior for every use case:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Both facets are specified and rendered --> Don't render any
icon
> > > > > > Both facets are specified but only one is rendered --> ?
> > > > > >  Both facets are specified but neither are rendered --> ?
> > > > > >  Only one facet is specified and rendered --> Don't render
any
> > icon or
> > > > > > render the icon of the missing facet?
> > > > > > Only one facet is specified but not rendered --> ?
> > > > > > No facet is specified --> Render both icons
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ~ Simon
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 9/18/07, Simon Lessard < simon.lessard.3@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > > > > > > Or put tr:icon in the facet. Yeah, that sound good too.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 9/18/07, Matthias Wessendorf < matzew@apache.org>
wrote:
> > > > > > > > that sounds like the best solution.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 9/18/07, Adam Winer < awiner@gmail.com >
wrote:
> > > > > > > > > IMO, if we have a facet, we don't render the
icon.  No
> > need
> > > > > > > > > for an attribute at all.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Anyone that desperately needs both the facet
and the icon
> > > > > > > > > can render two statusIndicators.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > -- Adam
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On 9/18/07, Matthias Wessendorf < matzew@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On 9/18/07, Simon Lessard < simon.lessard.3@gmail.com
>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Speaking of which, I forgot to add
skin documentation.
> > I'll do
> > > > > > that right
> > > > > > > > > > > away.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I would also like to add a new attribute
to skip the
> > icon
> > > > > > rendering. If it
> > > > > > > > > > > hasn't been of backward compatibility,
I would have
> > simply
> > > > removed
> > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I added a demo usage of the facet's, I was
thinking,
> > that it
> > > > > > shouldn't
> > > > > > > > > > render the "default" icon,
> > > > > > > > > > glad you pointed it out now.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > since it's easily doable with a combination
of facet
> > and
> > > > tr:icon,
> > > > > > but since
> > > > > > > > > > > we had a release with the statusIndicator
already,
> > that's out
> > > > of
> > > > > > question.
> > > > > > > > > > > So, what I need now is a decent attribute
name. What
> > do you
> > > > think
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > "renderIcon" or "renderFacetsOnly"?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I tend to like renderFacetsOnly, because
that what you
> > added
> > > > where
> > > > > > facets.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Perhaps, we can change that soon, that when
facet's are
> > > > specified,
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > don't render the "default" icon.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > -Matthias
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > ~ Simon
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > Matthias Wessendorf
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > further stuff:
> > > > > > > > > > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> > > > > > > > > > mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Matthias Wessendorf
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > further stuff:
> > > > > > > > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> > > > > > > > mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Mime
View raw message