You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to adffaces-dev@incubator.apache.org by Arjuna Wijeyekoon <ar...@gmail.com> on 2006/09/15 02:12:22 UTC
Marker interface for components that do not render anything
Hi,
Some components, like switcher and iterator, do not (or need not) render any
content themselves.
This causes problems when you try to add that component as a partial target,
eg:
RequestScope.getCurrentInstance().addPartialTarget(switcher);
It would be nice if the addPartialTarget method could detect that the
component does not render any content, walk up the tree and find the closest
ancestor that does render content and add that component as the partial
target.
In order to do that, there should be a way for a component to identify
itself as being a no-chrome component. This way, switcher and iterator and
other 3rd party components can be added as partialTargets and things will
just magically work.
This new interface could be called NonRenderingComponent,
NoChromeComponent, NoContentComponent.
(Alternatively, rather than use an interface, we could use a class
annotation; although I am not sure of any particular advantage of
annotations over interfaces. I will read up on that.)
Additionally, the framework could enforce that a component marked with such
an interface does infact render nothing.
thoughts?
--Arjuna
Re: Marker interface for components that do not render anything
Posted by Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com>.
NonRenderingComponent.
On 9/15/06, Adam Winer <aw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I like this too. A JIRA issue would be fine, but we should pick
> the name for the marker interface here. In addition to Arjuna's ideas,
> maybe: NoMarkupComponent, LogicOnlyComponent?
>
> -- Adam
>
>
> On 9/14/06, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > Arjuna,
> >
> > I like the idea of having a marker for those non-rendering-components
> > and enhancing RequestContext's addPartialTarget() logic for the tree
> > walk.
> >
> > Can you nail this issue / improvement to jira, that it doesn't get lost?
> >
> > -Matthias
> >
> >
> > On 9/15/06, Arjuna Wijeyekoon <ar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Hi,.
> > >
> > > Some components, like switcher and iterator, do not (or need not) render
> > any
> > > content themselves.
> > > This causes problems when you try to add that component as a partial
> > target,
> > > eg:
> > >
> > > RequestScope.getCurrentInstance().addPartialTarget(switcher);
> > >
> > > It would be nice if the addPartialTarget method could detect that the
> > > component does not render any content, walk up the tree and find the
> > closest
> > > ancestor that does render content and add that component as the partial
> > > target.
> > >
> > > In order to do that, there should be a way for a component to identify
> > > itself as being a no-chrome component. This way, switcher and iterator
> > and
> > > other 3rd party components can be added as partialTargets and things
> > will
> > > just magically work.
> > >
> > > This new interface could be called NonRenderingComponent,
> > > NoChromeComponent, NoContentComponent.
> > > (Alternatively, rather than use an interface, we could use a class
> > > annotation; although I am not sure of any particular advantage of
> > > annotations over interfaces. I will read up on that.)
> > >
> > >
> > > Additionally, the framework could enforce that a component marked with
> > such
> > > an interface does infact render nothing.
> > >
> > > thoughts?
> > >
> > > --Arjuna
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Matthias Wessendorf
> >
> > further stuff:
> > blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
> > mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
> >
>
>
Re: Marker interface for components that do not render anything
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>.
patch applyed
On 9/18/06, Arjuna Wijeyekoon <ar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> filed issue and uploaded patch.
>
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ADFFACES-179
>
>
> On 9/15/06, Arjuna Wijeyekoon <ar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I really like the idea of testing for a null rendererType.
> > My vote would be to just do that and add no public api.
> >
> > I think that the self-rendering component case is rare enough that we can
> > ignore it for now (and as Adam points out
> > PPR updating such a component will still work). If people scream we can
> > always add an api later.
> > If I don't hear otherwise, I'll file a JIRA issue and submit a patch for
> > this.
> >
> > thanks
> > Arjuna
> >
> >
> > On 9/15/06, Adam Winer <aw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > BTW, as far as the Trinidad components go, it's sufficient to
> > > simply say "getRendererType() == null"... but that doesn't
> > > account for self-rendered components. So, we might
> > > also do the converse: say that getRendererType() == null
> > > is what we use as a test, and if someone really needs a
> > > self-rendered component to be a target, they can add a marker
> > > interface to that component.
> > >
> > > So in theory, we could do this without any API additions. The
> > > worst-case scenario is that a few self-rendered components
> > > PPR their parents instead of themselves.
> > >
> > > -- Adam
> > >
> > >
> > > On 9/15/06, Adam Winer <aw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I like this too. A JIRA issue would be fine, but we should pick
> > > > the name for the marker interface here. In addition to Arjuna's
> > > ideas,
> > > > maybe: NoMarkupComponent, LogicOnlyComponent?
> > > >
> > > > -- Adam
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 9/14/06, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Arjuna,
> > > > >
> > > > > I like the idea of having a marker for those
> > > non-rendering-components
> > > > > and enhancing RequestContext's addPartialTarget() logic for the tree
> > > > > walk.
> > > > >
> > > > > Can you nail this issue / improvement to jira, that it doesn't get
> > > lost?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -Matthias
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 9/15/06, Arjuna Wijeyekoon <ar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Hi,.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Some components, like switcher and iterator, do not (or need not)
> > > > > render any
> > > > > > content themselves.
> > > > > > This causes problems when you try to add that component as a
> > > partial
> > > > > target,
> > > > > > eg:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > RequestScope.getCurrentInstance().addPartialTarget(switcher);
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It would be nice if the addPartialTarget method could detect that
> > > the
> > > > > > component does not render any content, walk up the tree and find
> > > the
> > > > > closest
> > > > > > ancestor that does render content and add that component as the
> > > > > partial
> > > > > > target.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In order to do that, there should be a way for a component to
> > > identify
> > > > >
> > > > > > itself as being a no-chrome component. This way, switcher and
> > > iterator
> > > > > and
> > > > > > other 3rd party components can be added as partialTargets and
> > > things
> > > > > will
> > > > > > just magically work.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This new interface could be called NonRenderingComponent,
> > > > > > NoChromeComponent, NoContentComponent.
> > > > > > (Alternatively, rather than use an interface, we could use a class
> > >
> > > > > > annotation; although I am not sure of any particular advantage of
> > > > > > annotations over interfaces. I will read up on that.)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Additionally, the framework could enforce that a component marked
> > > with
> > > > > such
> > > > > > an interface does infact render nothing.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > thoughts?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --Arjuna
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Matthias Wessendorf
> > > > >
> > > > > further stuff:
> > > > > blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
> > > > > mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
further stuff:
blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
Re: Marker interface for components that do not render anything
Posted by Arjuna Wijeyekoon <ar...@gmail.com>.
filed issue and uploaded patch.
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ADFFACES-179
On 9/15/06, Arjuna Wijeyekoon <ar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I really like the idea of testing for a null rendererType.
> My vote would be to just do that and add no public api.
>
> I think that the self-rendering component case is rare enough that we can
> ignore it for now (and as Adam points out
> PPR updating such a component will still work). If people scream we can
> always add an api later.
> If I don't hear otherwise, I'll file a JIRA issue and submit a patch for
> this.
>
> thanks
> Arjuna
>
>
> On 9/15/06, Adam Winer <aw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > BTW, as far as the Trinidad components go, it's sufficient to
> > simply say "getRendererType() == null"... but that doesn't
> > account for self-rendered components. So, we might
> > also do the converse: say that getRendererType() == null
> > is what we use as a test, and if someone really needs a
> > self-rendered component to be a target, they can add a marker
> > interface to that component.
> >
> > So in theory, we could do this without any API additions. The
> > worst-case scenario is that a few self-rendered components
> > PPR their parents instead of themselves.
> >
> > -- Adam
> >
> >
> > On 9/15/06, Adam Winer <aw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I like this too. A JIRA issue would be fine, but we should pick
> > > the name for the marker interface here. In addition to Arjuna's
> > ideas,
> > > maybe: NoMarkupComponent, LogicOnlyComponent?
> > >
> > > -- Adam
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 9/14/06, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Arjuna,
> > > >
> > > > I like the idea of having a marker for those
> > non-rendering-components
> > > > and enhancing RequestContext's addPartialTarget() logic for the tree
> > > > walk.
> > > >
> > > > Can you nail this issue / improvement to jira, that it doesn't get
> > lost?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -Matthias
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 9/15/06, Arjuna Wijeyekoon <ar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Hi,.
> > > > >
> > > > > Some components, like switcher and iterator, do not (or need not)
> > > > render any
> > > > > content themselves.
> > > > > This causes problems when you try to add that component as a
> > partial
> > > > target,
> > > > > eg:
> > > > >
> > > > > RequestScope.getCurrentInstance().addPartialTarget(switcher);
> > > > >
> > > > > It would be nice if the addPartialTarget method could detect that
> > the
> > > > > component does not render any content, walk up the tree and find
> > the
> > > > closest
> > > > > ancestor that does render content and add that component as the
> > > > partial
> > > > > target.
> > > > >
> > > > > In order to do that, there should be a way for a component to
> > identify
> > > >
> > > > > itself as being a no-chrome component. This way, switcher and
> > iterator
> > > > and
> > > > > other 3rd party components can be added as partialTargets and
> > things
> > > > will
> > > > > just magically work.
> > > > >
> > > > > This new interface could be called NonRenderingComponent,
> > > > > NoChromeComponent, NoContentComponent.
> > > > > (Alternatively, rather than use an interface, we could use a class
> >
> > > > > annotation; although I am not sure of any particular advantage of
> > > > > annotations over interfaces. I will read up on that.)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Additionally, the framework could enforce that a component marked
> > with
> > > > such
> > > > > an interface does infact render nothing.
> > > > >
> > > > > thoughts?
> > > > >
> > > > > --Arjuna
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Matthias Wessendorf
> > > >
> > > > further stuff:
> > > > blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
> > > > mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
Re: Marker interface for components that do not render anything
Posted by Arjuna Wijeyekoon <ar...@gmail.com>.
I really like the idea of testing for a null rendererType.
My vote would be to just do that and add no public api.
I think that the self-rendering component case is rare enough that we can
ignore it for now (and as Adam points out
PPR updating such a component will still work). If people scream we can
always add an api later.
If I don't hear otherwise, I'll file a JIRA issue and submit a patch for
this.
thanks
Arjuna
On 9/15/06, Adam Winer <aw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> BTW, as far as the Trinidad components go, it's sufficient to
> simply say "getRendererType() == null"... but that doesn't
> account for self-rendered components. So, we might
> also do the converse: say that getRendererType() == null
> is what we use as a test, and if someone really needs a
> self-rendered component to be a target, they can add a marker
> interface to that component.
>
> So in theory, we could do this without any API additions. The
> worst-case scenario is that a few self-rendered components
> PPR their parents instead of themselves.
>
> -- Adam
>
>
> On 9/15/06, Adam Winer <aw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I like this too. A JIRA issue would be fine, but we should pick
> > the name for the marker interface here. In addition to Arjuna's ideas,
> > maybe: NoMarkupComponent, LogicOnlyComponent?
> >
> > -- Adam
> >
> >
> >
> > On 9/14/06, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Arjuna,
> > >
> > > I like the idea of having a marker for those non-rendering-components
> > > and enhancing RequestContext's addPartialTarget() logic for the tree
> > > walk.
> > >
> > > Can you nail this issue / improvement to jira, that it doesn't get
> lost?
> > >
> > >
> > > -Matthias
> > >
> > >
> > > On 9/15/06, Arjuna Wijeyekoon <ar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Hi,.
> > > >
> > > > Some components, like switcher and iterator, do not (or need not)
> > > render any
> > > > content themselves.
> > > > This causes problems when you try to add that component as a partial
> > > target,
> > > > eg:
> > > >
> > > > RequestScope.getCurrentInstance().addPartialTarget(switcher);
> > > >
> > > > It would be nice if the addPartialTarget method could detect that
> the
> > > > component does not render any content, walk up the tree and find the
> > > closest
> > > > ancestor that does render content and add that component as the
> > > partial
> > > > target.
> > > >
> > > > In order to do that, there should be a way for a component to
> identify
> > >
> > > > itself as being a no-chrome component. This way, switcher and
> iterator
> > > and
> > > > other 3rd party components can be added as partialTargets and things
> > > will
> > > > just magically work.
> > > >
> > > > This new interface could be called NonRenderingComponent,
> > > > NoChromeComponent, NoContentComponent.
> > > > (Alternatively, rather than use an interface, we could use a class
> > > > annotation; although I am not sure of any particular advantage of
> > > > annotations over interfaces. I will read up on that.)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Additionally, the framework could enforce that a component marked
> with
> > > such
> > > > an interface does infact render nothing.
> > > >
> > > > thoughts?
> > > >
> > > > --Arjuna
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Matthias Wessendorf
> > >
> > > further stuff:
> > > blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
> > > mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Re: Marker interface for components that do not render anything
Posted by Adam Winer <aw...@gmail.com>.
BTW, as far as the Trinidad components go, it's sufficient to
simply say "getRendererType() == null"... but that doesn't
account for self-rendered components. So, we might
also do the converse: say that getRendererType() == null
is what we use as a test, and if someone really needs a
self-rendered component to be a target, they can add a marker
interface to that component.
So in theory, we could do this without any API additions. The
worst-case scenario is that a few self-rendered components
PPR their parents instead of themselves.
-- Adam
On 9/15/06, Adam Winer <aw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I like this too. A JIRA issue would be fine, but we should pick
> the name for the marker interface here. In addition to Arjuna's ideas,
> maybe: NoMarkupComponent, LogicOnlyComponent?
>
> -- Adam
>
>
>
> On 9/14/06, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > Arjuna,
> >
> > I like the idea of having a marker for those non-rendering-components
> > and enhancing RequestContext's addPartialTarget() logic for the tree
> > walk.
> >
> > Can you nail this issue / improvement to jira, that it doesn't get lost?
> >
> >
> > -Matthias
> >
> >
> > On 9/15/06, Arjuna Wijeyekoon <ar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Hi,.
> > >
> > > Some components, like switcher and iterator, do not (or need not)
> > render any
> > > content themselves.
> > > This causes problems when you try to add that component as a partial
> > target,
> > > eg:
> > >
> > > RequestScope.getCurrentInstance().addPartialTarget(switcher);
> > >
> > > It would be nice if the addPartialTarget method could detect that the
> > > component does not render any content, walk up the tree and find the
> > closest
> > > ancestor that does render content and add that component as the
> > partial
> > > target.
> > >
> > > In order to do that, there should be a way for a component to identify
> >
> > > itself as being a no-chrome component. This way, switcher and iterator
> > and
> > > other 3rd party components can be added as partialTargets and things
> > will
> > > just magically work.
> > >
> > > This new interface could be called NonRenderingComponent,
> > > NoChromeComponent, NoContentComponent.
> > > (Alternatively, rather than use an interface, we could use a class
> > > annotation; although I am not sure of any particular advantage of
> > > annotations over interfaces. I will read up on that.)
> > >
> > >
> > > Additionally, the framework could enforce that a component marked with
> > such
> > > an interface does infact render nothing.
> > >
> > > thoughts?
> > >
> > > --Arjuna
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Matthias Wessendorf
> >
> > further stuff:
> > blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
> > mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
> >
>
>
Re: Marker interface for components that do not render anything
Posted by Adam Winer <aw...@gmail.com>.
I like this too. A JIRA issue would be fine, but we should pick
the name for the marker interface here. In addition to Arjuna's ideas,
maybe: NoMarkupComponent, LogicOnlyComponent?
-- Adam
On 9/14/06, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Arjuna,
>
> I like the idea of having a marker for those non-rendering-components
> and enhancing RequestContext's addPartialTarget() logic for the tree
> walk.
>
> Can you nail this issue / improvement to jira, that it doesn't get lost?
>
> -Matthias
>
>
> On 9/15/06, Arjuna Wijeyekoon <ar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi,.
> >
> > Some components, like switcher and iterator, do not (or need not) render
> any
> > content themselves.
> > This causes problems when you try to add that component as a partial
> target,
> > eg:
> >
> > RequestScope.getCurrentInstance().addPartialTarget(switcher);
> >
> > It would be nice if the addPartialTarget method could detect that the
> > component does not render any content, walk up the tree and find the
> closest
> > ancestor that does render content and add that component as the partial
> > target.
> >
> > In order to do that, there should be a way for a component to identify
> > itself as being a no-chrome component. This way, switcher and iterator
> and
> > other 3rd party components can be added as partialTargets and things
> will
> > just magically work.
> >
> > This new interface could be called NonRenderingComponent,
> > NoChromeComponent, NoContentComponent.
> > (Alternatively, rather than use an interface, we could use a class
> > annotation; although I am not sure of any particular advantage of
> > annotations over interfaces. I will read up on that.)
> >
> >
> > Additionally, the framework could enforce that a component marked with
> such
> > an interface does infact render nothing.
> >
> > thoughts?
> >
> > --Arjuna
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Matthias Wessendorf
>
> further stuff:
> blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
> mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
>
Re: Marker interface for components that do not render anything
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>.
Arjuna,
I like the idea of having a marker for those non-rendering-components
and enhancing RequestContext's addPartialTarget() logic for the tree
walk.
Can you nail this issue / improvement to jira, that it doesn't get lost?
-Matthias
On 9/15/06, Arjuna Wijeyekoon <ar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Some components, like switcher and iterator, do not (or need not) render any
> content themselves.
> This causes problems when you try to add that component as a partial target,
> eg:
>
> RequestScope.getCurrentInstance().addPartialTarget(switcher);
>
> It would be nice if the addPartialTarget method could detect that the
> component does not render any content, walk up the tree and find the closest
> ancestor that does render content and add that component as the partial
> target.
>
> In order to do that, there should be a way for a component to identify
> itself as being a no-chrome component. This way, switcher and iterator and
> other 3rd party components can be added as partialTargets and things will
> just magically work.
>
> This new interface could be called NonRenderingComponent,
> NoChromeComponent, NoContentComponent.
> (Alternatively, rather than use an interface, we could use a class
> annotation; although I am not sure of any particular advantage of
> annotations over interfaces. I will read up on that.)
>
>
> Additionally, the framework could enforce that a component marked with such
> an interface does infact render nothing.
>
> thoughts?
>
> --Arjuna
>
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
further stuff:
blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com