Re: spring conversation start (@manfred)

[Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com>]

Hi Craig,

Facelets supports a

setPropertyActionListener

as well - if Clay does, I can't say.

regards,

Martin

On 12/20/06, Craig McClanahan <cr...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> On 12/19/06, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > Just out of curiousity, where did they add "it"?  I don't see any
> reference
> > > to updateActionListener in 1.2.
> >
> > it is named setPropertyActionListener in the spec and in trinidad
> > setActinListener
>
> Thanks ... I had not recalled that from when I last did a detailed review of
> all the 1.2 changes.  Hmm, between that and <f:valueChangeListener>, JSF has
> a pretty good analog to the "Beans Binding" JSR for Swing (JSR-296) :-), but
> only if you're using JSP :-(.  I presume that the alternative view handlers
> like Clay and Facelets will deal with that issue on their own.
>
> > -M
>
> Craig
>
>
> > > By the way, is this similar to (or identical to) your idea for a
> preupdate()
> > > method in Shale's ViewController (SHALE-338)?  If so, I still like the
> idea
> > > ...  just need to see the follow through :-).
> > >
> > > Craig
> > >
> > > > Just my $0.02
> > > >
> > > > -M
> > > >
> > > > On 12/20/06, Werner Punz < werpu@gmx.at> wrote:
> > > > > Craig McClanahan schrieb:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > One of the architectural approaches that MyFaces developers seem
> to do
> > > > > > pretty often, even when they don't have to, is think of everything
> as
> > > > > > needing a component.  To me, this involves the person building the
> > > view
> > > > > > in decisions that really belong to the person working on the
> business
> > > > > > logic.  Yes, it's often the same person, but where is the
> separation
> > > of
> > > > > > concerns?
> > > > > >
> > > > > That was indeed the concerns of the original scope tag
> > > > > (I am using it currently btw. it is excellent work)
> > > > > the original intent was to have a viable replacement for savestate
> > > > > which would allow quick and dirty scoping with a
> > > > > a visual/tag approach.
> > > > >
> > > > > Mario did this approach and he solved it in an excellent way
> > > > > and yes, there is a break in separation of concerns and it was
> > > > > intended by design to ease the development of small applications,
> > > > >
> > > > > you basically push the scope control and parts of the transaction
> > > > > handling into the visual part.
> > > > >
> > > > > But the idea was to have a tag like way for those things, and if you
> > > > > need it differently (which many apps do but many small ones dont)
> > > > > have other frameworks deal with it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Now Mario, now he is moving into the Spring domain with his stuff,
> seems
> > > > > to be covering, let other frameworks do the scope control approach,
> > > > > as well.
> > > > >
> > > > > Btw. The scope tag of Mario is really excellent you should give it a
> > > > > try, but I agree, separation of concerns is not really there and
> cannot
> > > > > be by design principle, but there are other frameworks and solutions
> > > > > to deal with this.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Matthias Wessendorf
> > > > http://tinyurl.com/fmywh
> > > >
> > > > further stuff:
> > > > blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
> > > > mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Matthias Wessendorf
> > http://tinyurl.com/fmywh
> >
> > further stuff:
> > blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
> > mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
> >
>
>


-- 

http://www.irian.at

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

Professional Support for Apache MyFaces