-
1. Re: Suggestion for component id addressing
nbelaevski Jul 8, 2010 1:04 PM (in response to dan.j.allen)Hi Dan,
Thanks for the suggestion! I've created https://jira.jboss.org/browse/RFPL-662 task to review it just after M1.
-
2. Re: Suggestion for component id addressing
dan.j.allen Jul 8, 2010 1:29 PM (in response to nbelaevski)Cool! Thanks Nick!
-
3. Re: Suggestion for component id addressing
ilya_shaikovsky Oct 11, 2010 9:16 AM (in response to dan.j.allen)Nick already implemented something like render="repeat:#{tableView.rowsList}:componentId" support for repeat. seems notation even more clear that all proposed before. Need just to list all restrictions if present and see how it works for us.
-
4. Re: Suggestion for component id addressing
nbelaevski Dec 23, 2010 9:01 AM (in response to ilya_shaikovsky)Discussed and decided to use:
table:@rowKeys(cccc):id#{rowKeys('table', keys}:idtable:@rowKeys(bean.keys):id
-
5. Suggestion for component id addressing
nbelaevski Jan 13, 2011 11:20 AM (in response to nbelaevski)Another syntax options:
table@rows(bean.keys) - should be qualified with @row/@treeNode automatically
table@rows(bean.keys):cellId - particular column update
The same with additional separator
table:@rows(bean.keys)
table:@rows(bean.keys):cellId
table:* - possible, but IMO doesn't make sense to support
table:*:cellId
-
6. Suggestion for component id addressing
jbalunas Jan 13, 2011 2:08 PM (in response to nbelaevski)Personally I'm between both for different reasons.
The extra separator is really just following convention of using a ":" to mark boundaries, while the "table@rows()" looks a bit cleaner to me.
I don't feel strongly about this, but all things being equal we should follow conventions. Especially if following convention is as simple as a ":". If you reference a component like "form:componentId" you should reference the dynamic rows with "table:@rows(...)". In this case the "@" is simply shorthand for dynamic ids.
-
7. Suggestion for component id addressing
jbalunas Jan 17, 2011 11:50 AM (in response to jbalunas)Please get any comments or thoughts on component addressing in before the team meeting tomorrow. I would like to finalize this by then.
Thanks,
Jay
-
8. Re: Suggestion for component id addressing
nbelaevski Jan 17, 2011 12:01 PM (in response to jbalunas)After additional discussion with Alex we've decided to remove support for wildcard matching (using '*' symbol). Also I'm being biased to use conventions variant:
table:@rows(bean.expression):cell
One more thing: how complex can be EL-expression inside @rows(...) be? The problem there is that they can contain symbols like ' ', ',' or '(' and this is conflicting with ID parsing. Example (strings 'y(1)' & 'x(1)' are application-dependent identifier strings used as argument for getKeys(...) function):
render="table:@rows(bean.getKeys('y(1)', 1)):cell tree:@rows(bean.getKeys('x(1)', value)):cell"
To keep it simple I'm going to implement very basic variant that does not support such EL-expressions and then we can improve the implementation. Thoughts?
-
9. Re: Suggestion for component id addressing
jbalunas Jan 17, 2011 12:17 PM (in response to nbelaevski)Nick and I just talked and he is going post some examples of the simple use cases support, so we can understand it better.
So we'll go with the additional separator format, and for now support only basic EL in the method.
-
10. Suggestion for component id addressing
ilya_shaikovsky Jan 18, 2011 3:07 AM (in response to jbalunas)I discussed the same simple variant with Nick already so have nothing to add. Completelly agree that simple variant without parametrized methodExpressions and * in patters is the best what we should do for now in order to keep it simple, functional and stable in first version. And I like table:@rows..:id pattern as it corresponds to real client id in tables adressing.
-
11. Re: Suggestion for component id addressing
freemarket Dec 5, 2011 4:55 PM (in response to ilya_shaikovsky)Do you have any suggestions for what component id syntax would be appropriate for R/F 3.3.3.Final to achieve partial table update (row or cell)?