Tomahawk datatable issues
Hi, I'm using myfaces.1.1.5
snapshot+tomahawk.1.1.5.snapshot+facelets 1.1.11.
Component DataTable has a number of open issues affecting usability:
1. DataTable rows are not rendered with their
rowIds. E.g.
rowIndexVar="rowIndex"
rowId="#{rowIndex}" // or any other binding
does not yields any id on rendered html. This is a side-effect of
having facelets onboard, as described in http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/myfaces-dev/200603.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]).
Suggested workaround runs fine, though.
2. I would expect that
't:dataTable id="result" forceId="true" ...' should render as
'table id="result"' and not as
'table id="_id96:result"',
otherwise I miss the meaning of forceId.
3. Attribute columnClasses seems not working, since the very first
class is rendered for *all* columns. Since this works fine in Myfaces
examples, I guess there is some Facelets side-effect somewhere.
4. The component InputHidden does not accept attributes
forceId/forceIdIndex, unlike what's documented (this implies no way to
generate simple id for hidden fields inside a table).
Comments are welcome -- Renzo
RE: Tomahawk datatable issues
2 and 4: see
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TOMAHAWK-102
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TOMAHAWK-542
and maybe http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TOMAHAWK-637
Michael
From: Renzo Tomaselli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Dienstag, 28. November 2006 17:17
To: MyFaces Discussion
Subject: Tomahawk datatable issues
Hi, I'm using myfaces.1.1.5 snapshot+tomahawk.1.1.5.snapshot+facelets
1.1.11.
Component DataTable has a number of open issues affecting usability:
1. DataTable rows are not rendered with their rowIds. E.g.
rowIndexVar=rowIndex
rowId=#{rowIndex} // or any other binding
does not yields any id on rendered html. This is a side-effect of having
facelets onboard, as described in
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/myfaces-dev/200603.mbox/%3C8f98
[EMAIL PROTECTED]).
Suggested workaround runs fine, though.
2. I would expect that
't:dataTable id=result forceId=true ...' should render as
'table id=result' and not as
'table id=_id96:result',
otherwise I miss the meaning of forceId.
3. Attribute columnClasses seems not working, since the very first class
is rendered for *all* columns. Since this works fine in Myfaces
examples, I guess there is some Facelets side-effect somewhere.
4. The component InputHidden does not accept attributes
forceId/forceIdIndex, unlike what's documented (this implies no way to
generate simple id for hidden fields inside a table).
Comments are welcome -- Renzo
Re: Tomahawk datatable issues
Yes, both appear as a common issue related to Facelets,
like for n. 1.
Using Facelets on top of Tomahawk is raising quite a number of unsolved
troubles.
Renzo
Michael Heinen wrote:
2 and 4: see
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TOMAHAWK-102
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TOMAHAWK-542
and maybe http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TOMAHAWK-637
Michael
From:
Renzo Tomaselli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Dienstag, 28.
November 2006
17:17
To: MyFaces Discussion
Subject: Tomahawk
datatable issues
Hi,
I'm using
myfaces.1.1.5 snapshot+tomahawk.1.1.5.snapshot+facelets 1.1.11.
Component DataTable has a number of open issues affecting usability:
1. DataTable rows are not rendered with their rowIds. E.g.
rowIndexVar="rowIndex"
rowId="#{rowIndex}" // or any other binding
does not yields any id on rendered html. This is a side-effect of
having
facelets onboard, as described in http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/myfaces-dev/200603.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]).
Suggested workaround runs fine, though.
2. I would expect that
't:dataTable id="result" forceId="true" ...' should
render as
'table id="result"' and not as
'table id="_id96:result"',
otherwise I miss the meaning of forceId.
3. Attribute columnClasses seems not working, since the very first
class is
rendered for *all* columns. Since this works fine in Myfaces examples,
I guess
there is some Facelets side-effect somewhere.
4. The component InputHidden does not accept attributes
forceId/forceIdIndex,
unlike what's documented (this implies no way to generate simple id for
hidden
fields inside a table).
Comments are welcome -- Renzo
