On 8/24/06, Sean Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I suspect what Adam is asking about is Shale getting in the business of creating visual components like buttons in order to implement the Next/Previous type of thing. That's an area I have wanted to shy away from, and this kind of thing is a case in point for why. No matter what we do, our navigation buttons are going to stick out like a sore thumb visually, unless the user takes great pains to style them similar to whatever theming or skinning strategy the developer is using on all the other components.
That being said, the logical concept that a general purpose dialog architecture might want to support explicit mechanisms for wizard-style navigation is well taken. But we should strive to make it possible to incorporate existing button or hyperlink components from your favorite component library, instead of imposing our own.
Craig
No I'm not proposing we deal with generating HTML rendering business
as far as dialogs are concerned. [I'll post a more detailed
explanation on the shale dev list where that belongs.]
@Adam: If you're not already subscribed to shale dev we'd love to have
you over there. Specifically, we could benefit from your insight
regarding dialogs.
I suspect what Adam is asking about is Shale getting in the business of creating visual components like buttons in order to implement the Next/Previous type of thing. That's an area I have wanted to shy away from, and this kind of thing is a case in point for why. No matter what we do, our navigation buttons are going to stick out like a sore thumb visually, unless the user takes great pains to style them similar to whatever theming or skinning strategy the developer is using on all the other components.
That being said, the logical concept that a general purpose dialog architecture might want to support explicit mechanisms for wizard-style navigation is well taken. But we should strive to make it possible to incorporate existing button or hyperlink components from your favorite component library, instead of imposing our own.
Craig
@Everyone Else: This goes for you too. If you're using JSF you'll
want to check out Shale which just builds on JSF and provides a lot of
cool stuff missing from the spec.
Sean
On 8/24/06, Gary VanMatre <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
>
>
> >From: "Adam Winer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >Wrong list, sure, but since you opened up the can of worms...
> >
> >Is Shale really planning on getting into the HTML-rendering
> >business?
> >
>
>
> What do you mean by "HTML-rendering business"?
>
> We have custom components that do rendering. Clay has been around better
> than a year now and provides rich view composition using various templating
> options. Clay is a component in of itself that simple builds a subtree of
> components using a mechanism other than JSP tags. The clay component
> renders it children. When using full html (tapestry like) views or full xml
> (tiles like) views, the clay component is the only child under the view root
> so it pretty much renderers the full page.
>
>
>
>
> >-- Adam
> >
>
>
> Gary
