For better scope control perhaps we should have a baseTree and an advancedTree component set?
Cheers,
Zubin.
On 10/5/06, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I haven't said that there is no value for that.
But I am abit against a "super tree component" :)
Maybe there is value for a "specialized" editable tree or what ever. I
know scenarios where that would be nice. but on the other hand you
don't want this "overhead" when just displaying structured data.
I think same is true for an editable table
(not a table w/ inputText in it... ;) )
-M
On 10/5/06, Zubin Wadia < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthias,
>
> I think the Tree component can be used in contexts beyond navigation - for
> example, it can be implemented for Content/Document management where a
> Category-DocumentType heirarchy needs to be user managed and editable based
> on their changing business process and the type of content they wish to
> classify.
>
> In the .NET world - this excellent Tree component also supports Node editing
> for such scenarios:
>
> http://www.componentart.com/treeview/features.aspx
>
> I believe there is value in the use-case Martin is describing.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Zubin.
>
>
>
> On 10/5/06, Matthias Wessendorf < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > also why should a tree, used for navigation structure be an editable
> > value holder?
> > It just structures data :)
> >
> > On 10/5/06, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I think a tree should "display" structured data and not be an "input
> component".
> > > What should the input be? So you are willing register also validators
> > > on the tree?
> > >
> > > maybe that is more "specialized" use case instead a "generic" tree use
> > > case you are looking at.
> > >
> > > On 10/5/06, Martin Marinschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Hi Matthias,
> > > >
> > > > for the reason that every component that has changing values needs to
> > > > be an editable value holder. Imagine the case of a tree embedded in a
> > > > data-table - a data-table, at least the ones of both MyFaces and the
> > > > RI (I know, Trinidad's data-table does something different) only save
> > > > whatever is part of the EditableValueHolder interface.
> > > >
> > > > So the selection model of a tree won't be saved in a dataTable, except
> > > > it is part of the EditableValueHolder interface.
> > > >
> > > > regards,
> > > >
> > > > Martin
> > > >
> > > > On 10/5/06, Matthias Wessendorf < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > I think a tree is much more about "sturctured" data instead of
> "input data"
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The UIXCollection is a base clazz for the "stamping", that you can
> say
> > > > > "var" on those tags.
> > > > >
> > > > > UIComponent
> > > > > |
> > > > > + - UIXComponent
> > > > > |
> > > > > + - UIXComponentBase
> > > > > |
> > > > > + UIXCollection
> > > > >
> > > > > Collection has some subclasses like
> > > > >
> > > > > UIXHierarchy
> > > > > |
> > > > > + UIXTree
> > > > >
> > > > > and
> > > > >
> > > > > UIXIterator
> > > > > |
> > > > > + UIXTable
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The Trinidad Tree uses a "TreeModel" which extends CollectionModel
> > > > > (Trin) which extends DataModel (Faces). CollectionModel is also used
> > > > > by the Trin Table.
> > > > >
> > > > > But, I am not really sure, why the table should be
> EditableValueHolder ?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > -Matthias
> > > > >
> > > > > On 10/5/06, Martin Marinschek < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > Hi *,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > yes, I'd also like to do an Ajaxified version, but that's not the
> > > > > > first thing I'm looking at.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I believe that extending from UIData is not really what we should
> do -
> > > > > > UIData is totally row-based, and a row-index doesn't make so much
> > > > > > sense for a dynamic tree.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What are the tree and the table of trinidad sharing with the
> > > > > > UIXCollection interface?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > regards,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Martin
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 10/4/06, Matthias Wessendorf < [EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
> > > > > > > Hi M-
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 10/4/06, Martin Marinschek < [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > > > > > > > Hi *,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm reviewing the tree2 currently, and I was wondering if we
> could
> > > > > > > > have a discussion about some of the concepts.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > First thing I'd like to discuss is what happens with selected
> nodes.
> > > > > > > > Currently, selecting a node fires an action-listener. This is
> somewhat
> > > > > > > > ok, but I believe the selection-model of a tree should rather
> be a
> > > > > > > > list of values, stored at a useful place. Therefore, the tree
> should
> > > > > > > > implement the EditableValueHolder-interface, then we could do
> a lot
> > > > > > > > more with the values of the tree as well.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I am not really sure about the EditableValueHolder. In Trinidad
> the
> > > > > > > Tree (UIXTree) is type of UIXCollection, which is also used by
> > > > > > > UIXTable.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I remember some discussions from Sean in the past that they
> Tree2
> > > > > > > should extend UIData instead of UIComponent(Base)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The change would necessitate to move the current "value"
> attribute to
> > > > > > > > some other name - I suppose the name "model" would be more
> appropriate
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > nothing wrong w/ using model instead of value, since value makes
> sense on
> > > > > > > (editable)valueHolders to me...
> > > > > > > (like UIOutput, UIInput, UISelect*,...)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > anyways (I've never understood why a dataTable has a
> > > > > > > > "value"-attribute, by the way, the semantics for the
> value-attribute
> > > > > > > > are generally quite different).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I guess they just simply introduced that since there was a
> "value" of
> > > > > > > (edit.)value:_holders
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Additionally, the tree is doing a lot with respect to the
> markup of
> > > > > > > > the component. I'm not sure if this is useful as very large
> HTML-bases
> > > > > > > > result from this. I suspect it would be better to only
> transfer the
> > > > > > > > data-model to the client (and maybe templates for each
> node-type), and
> > > > > > > > then render the nodes on the client dynamically.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > you mean sending "xml" to the client and using a JS_engine to
> render
> > > > > > > on the client side?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -Matthias
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thoughts?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > regards,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Martin
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > http://www.irian.at
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Your JSF powerhouse -
> > > > > > > > JSF Consulting, Development and
> > > > > > > > Courses in English and German
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > 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
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > 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
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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
> >
>
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
http://tinyurl.com/fmywh
further stuff:
blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com