OK, five seconds more consideration, and now I'm torn.
It's easy enough to write:
<tr:statusIndicator>
<f:facet name="busy">Loading...</f:facet>
<f:facet name="ready"><tr:outputText/></f:facet>
</tr:statusIndicator>
... which would have the same effect. So I could really
go either way.
-- Adam
On 9/19/07, Adam Winer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I see what you're saying... I think I'd be OK then with a rule
> where specifying either facet gets rid of both icons. Especially
> with a bit of doc explaining why it does that (exactly the example
> you give).
>
> -- Adam
>
>
>
> On 9/19/07, Simon Lessard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hello Adam,
> >
> > On 9/18/07, Adam Winer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I think it should be as simple as for each of "busy" and
> > > "ready", render the facet if it's present, the icon if it's not.
> >
> > The only issue with that behavior is most common usage. I think the most
> > common usage with facets is going to be a "busy" facet and no "ready" (to
> > mimic GMail behavior for example). Personally, that's the way I would use
> > it. If that's really the most common case, then it should be "as soon as a
> > facet is specified, rendered or not, no icon will be rendered". But, if we
> > think the most common case is going to be with both facets, then I agree
> > with your suggestion.
> >
> > ~ Simon
> >
> >
> > > -- Adam
> > >
> > >
> > > On 9/18/07, Simon Lessard < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Hmm not as simple as I though. Before pushing a patch let decide on the
> > > > behavior for every use case:
> > > >
> > > > Both facets are specified and rendered --> Don't render any icon
> > > > Both facets are specified but only one is rendered --> ?
> > > > Both facets are specified but neither are rendered --> ?
> > > > Only one facet is specified and rendered --> Don't render any icon or
> > > > render the icon of the missing facet?
> > > > Only one facet is specified but not rendered --> ?
> > > > No facet is specified --> Render both icons
> > > >
> > > > ~ Simon
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 9/18/07, Simon Lessard < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > Or put tr:icon in the facet. Yeah, that sound good too.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 9/18/07, Matthias Wessendorf < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > that sounds like the best solution.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 9/18/07, Adam Winer < [EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
> > > > > > > IMO, if we have a facet, we don't render the icon. No need
> > > > > > > for an attribute at all.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Anyone that desperately needs both the facet and the icon
> > > > > > > can render two statusIndicators.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -- Adam
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 9/18/07, Matthias Wessendorf < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 9/18/07, Simon Lessard < [EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Speaking of which, I forgot to add skin documentation. I'll do
> > > > that right
> > > > > > > > > away.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I would also like to add a new attribute to skip the icon
> > > > rendering. If it
> > > > > > > > > hasn't been of backward compatibility, I would have simply
> > removed
> > > > them
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I added a demo usage of the facet's, I was thinking, that it
> > > > shouldn't
> > > > > > > > render the "default" icon,
> > > > > > > > glad you pointed it out now.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > since it's easily doable with a combination of facet and
> > tr:icon,
> > > > but since
> > > > > > > > > we had a release with the statusIndicator already, that's out
> > of
> > > > question.
> > > > > > > > > So, what I need now is a decent attribute name. What do you
> > think
> > > > of
> > > > > > > > > "renderIcon" or "renderFacetsOnly"?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I tend to like renderFacetsOnly, because that what you added
> > where
> > > > facets.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Perhaps, we can change that soon, that when facet's are
> > specified,
> > > > we
> > > > > > > > don't render the "default" icon.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -Matthias
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ~ Simon
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > 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
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
