DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34714>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34714 ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-05-04 02:31 ------- (In reply to comment #5) > I think this would still be not optimal. Suppose the following scenario: > A developer receives Clay component definitions from different sources and > wants to assemble dialogues. But there is a big problem. Developer A has used > 'allowBody', developer B 'myAllowBody' and so on. True. > I see currently only two solutions to avoid that problem: > 1. Define the special attribute names per file. Sounds to complicated for something that can be managed by a search and replace. > 2. Remove the special attribute names and use independent tags. I like the simplicity of the current schema and would rather not have to many tags. How about we make it an optional attribute of the component node. Then we could keep the attributes as a direct mapping to the JSF component. <!ELEMENT component (attributes?, converter?, validator*, actionListener*, valueChangeListener*, element*)> <!ATTLIST component jsfid CDATA #REQUIRED extends CDATA #IMPLIED componentType CDATA #IMPLIED id CDATA #IMPLIED allowBody %Boolean; #IMPLIED > There is an open ticket that is related to this area: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34698 -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
