You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@myfaces.apache.org by Renzo Tomaselli <re...@tecnotp.it> on 2007/06/25 19:31:01 UTC
[Trinidad] UIXForm vs. UIForm
Hi, I met some troubles while enclosing rich:dropDownMenu components
inside a tr:form. The involved renderer complains about not being able
to find an enclosing form.
That component expects to be enclosed by a standard UIForm somewhere
high in the component tree, while Trinidad tr:form places a UIXForm
class there (actually a CoreForm class).
Tr:form was mandatory while using Trinidad because of reasons I can't
remember right now.
Just trying to understand what is standard and what is not in this puzzle.
Could anybody enlight this topic please ?
Thanks -- Renzo
Re: [Trinidad] UIXForm vs. UIForm
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>.
one more.
In Tomahawk, we check against the component-type/family (which are String based)
-M
On 6/25/07, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> Trinidad's hierarchy is
> javax.faces.component.UIComponent
> UIXCOmponent
> UIXComponentBase
> ...
>
> Trinidad also uses the standard interfaces, like EditableValueHolder
> or ValueHolder.
> Unfortunately there is no Form interfaces, so that some JSF component
> libs do a instanceof UIForm, which doesn't work with Trinidad.
>
> But... h:form works fine with Trinidad as well.
>
> -M
>
> On 6/25/07, Renzo Tomaselli <re...@tecnotp.it> wrote:
> > Hi, I met some troubles while enclosing rich:dropDownMenu components
> > inside a tr:form. The involved renderer complains about not being able
> > to find an enclosing form.
> > That component expects to be enclosed by a standard UIForm somewhere
> > high in the component tree, while Trinidad tr:form places a UIXForm
> > class there (actually a CoreForm class).
> > Tr:form was mandatory while using Trinidad because of reasons I can't
> > remember right now.
> > Just trying to understand what is standard and what is not in this puzzle.
> > Could anybody enlight this topic please ?
> > Thanks -- Renzo
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> 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
Re: [Trinidad] UIXForm vs. UIForm
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>.
Trinidad's hierarchy is
javax.faces.component.UIComponent
UIXCOmponent
UIXComponentBase
...
Trinidad also uses the standard interfaces, like EditableValueHolder
or ValueHolder.
Unfortunately there is no Form interfaces, so that some JSF component
libs do a instanceof UIForm, which doesn't work with Trinidad.
But... h:form works fine with Trinidad as well.
-M
On 6/25/07, Renzo Tomaselli <re...@tecnotp.it> wrote:
> Hi, I met some troubles while enclosing rich:dropDownMenu components
> inside a tr:form. The involved renderer complains about not being able
> to find an enclosing form.
> That component expects to be enclosed by a standard UIForm somewhere
> high in the component tree, while Trinidad tr:form places a UIXForm
> class there (actually a CoreForm class).
> Tr:form was mandatory while using Trinidad because of reasons I can't
> remember right now.
> Just trying to understand what is standard and what is not in this puzzle.
> Could anybody enlight this topic please ?
> Thanks -- Renzo
>
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
further stuff:
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org