You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@myfaces.apache.org by Volker Weber <us...@weber-oldenburg.de> on 2005/11/01 00:01:21 UTC
Re: curious problem with dates
In case of dataTable the taglib docu says:
Extended data_table that adds some additional features to the standard
data_table ...
so you are right to expect this, but in general if there is no
significant difference there should no reason to have a component with
the same name in core and tomahwak (or anywhere else).
An if i decide to use the tomahawk one instead of the core one, i have
to know these differences.
Or in other words: if not just this known difference is the reason to
use the tomahawk component, there is no reason.
just my opinion :-)
Regards and good night
Volker
CONNER, BRENDAN (SBCSI) wrote:
> I *do* expect that <t:dataTable> is a version of <h:dataTable> with
> additional functionality. I don't expect it to have different defaults
> for borders or background color, for example.
>
> - Brendan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Volker Weber [mailto:users.myfaces@weber-oldenburg.de]
> Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 4:29 PM
> To: MyFaces Discussion
> Subject: Re: curious problem with dates
>
>
> I think no one would expect that a tomahawk componet has the same
> behavior as a same named core component. So if somone uses a component
> from tomahawk, which also exists in core, he should know about the
> differences.
>
> E.g. i don't expect from <t:dataTable ...> the same behavior as from
> <h:dataTable ...>.
>
> regards
> Volker
>
> CONNER, BRENDAN (SBCSI) wrote:
>
>>Right. I was just saying that, it's one thing to explicitly add
>>functionality, but it's another thing to silently alter the default
>>assumptions.
>>
>>- Brendan
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Volker Weber [mailto:users.myfaces@weber-oldenburg.de]
>>Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 4:00 PM
>>To: MyFaces Discussion
>>Subject: Re: curious problem with dates
>>
>>
>>Yes this is correct, but the difference is between tomahawk and JSF
>
> spec
>
>>components than.
>>
>>
>>CONNER, BRENDAN (SBCSI) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Oh. I was under the impression that the sandbox stuff was just a
>>>preliminary step to going to Tomahawk. Sorry.
>>>
>>>- Brendan
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Volker Weber [mailto:users.myfaces@weber-oldenburg.de]
>>>Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 3:54 PM
>>>To: MyFaces Discussion
>>>Subject: Re: curious problem with dates
>>>
>>>
>>>Hi,
>>>
>>>CONNER, BRENDAN (SBCSI) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Sounds good, except that, if the JSF spec says to use GMT by default,
>>>>shouldn't we keep that as the default, to be consistent with it and
>>>>avoid confusion among people using different implementations?
>>>>
>>>>Maybe we should add support for allowing the user to specify using
>
> the
>
>>>>"server" time zone by setting an attribute value?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Switching between <f:convertDateTime .... /> (JSF spec)
>>>and <s:convertDateTime .... /> (sandbox) gives the user exactly this
>>>ability.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>- Brendan
>>>>
>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>From: Travis Reeder [mailto:treeder@gmail.com]
>>>>Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 1:43 PM
>>>>To: MyFaces Discussion
>>>>Subject: Re: curious problem with dates
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Hi all,
>>>>
>>>>I just checked in a sandbox converter for this that uses
>>>>TimeZone.getDefault() for default timezone instead of GMT. Used same
>>>>as core, but in the sandbox namespace.
>>>>
>>>><s:convertDateTime .... />
>>>>
>>>>Travis
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Regards
>>> Volker
>>
>>
>
--
Don't answer to From: address!
Mail to this account are droped if not recieved via mailinglist.
To contact me direct create the mail address by
concatenating my forename to my senders domain.
Re: curious problem with dates
Posted by Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com>.
I believe I am with Brendan on this.
Let's give it an attribute.
regards,
Martin
On 11/1/05, Simon Kitching <sk...@obsidium.com> wrote:
> That's a good point. If the *defaults* for t:convertDateTime (currently
> s:convertDateTime) are different than f:convertDateTime then perhaps it
> should have a different name, eg
> t:convertLocalDateTime
> or
> t:altConvertDateTime
>
> New functionality is expected, but operations inherited from the parent
> tag working *differently* could well surprise people.
>
> Regards,
>
> Simon
>
> Volker Weber wrote:
> > In case of dataTable the taglib docu says:
> > Extended data_table that adds some additional features to the standard
> > data_table ...
> > so you are right to expect this, but in general if there is no
> > significant difference there should no reason to have a component with
> > the same name in core and tomahwak (or anywhere else).
> > An if i decide to use the tomahawk one instead of the core one, i have
> > to know these differences.
> >
> > Or in other words: if not just this known difference is the reason to
> > use the tomahawk component, there is no reason.
> >
> > just my opinion :-)
> >
> > Regards and good night
> >
> > Volker
> >
> > CONNER, BRENDAN (SBCSI) wrote:
> >> I *do* expect that <t:dataTable> is a version of <h:dataTable> with
> >> additional functionality. I don't expect it to have different defaults
> >> for borders or background color, for example.
>
>
--
http://www.irian.at
Your JSF powerhouse -
JSF Trainings in English and German
Re: curious problem with dates
Posted by Simon Kitching <sk...@obsidium.com>.
That's a good point. If the *defaults* for t:convertDateTime (currently
s:convertDateTime) are different than f:convertDateTime then perhaps it
should have a different name, eg
t:convertLocalDateTime
or
t:altConvertDateTime
New functionality is expected, but operations inherited from the parent
tag working *differently* could well surprise people.
Regards,
Simon
Volker Weber wrote:
> In case of dataTable the taglib docu says:
> Extended data_table that adds some additional features to the standard
> data_table ...
> so you are right to expect this, but in general if there is no
> significant difference there should no reason to have a component with
> the same name in core and tomahwak (or anywhere else).
> An if i decide to use the tomahawk one instead of the core one, i have
> to know these differences.
>
> Or in other words: if not just this known difference is the reason to
> use the tomahawk component, there is no reason.
>
> just my opinion :-)
>
> Regards and good night
>
> Volker
>
> CONNER, BRENDAN (SBCSI) wrote:
>> I *do* expect that <t:dataTable> is a version of <h:dataTable> with
>> additional functionality. I don't expect it to have different defaults
>> for borders or background color, for example.