On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 13:06:58 -0600, Michael Rasmussen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Craig,
> I know this came up before in a converstion we had about dialogs. I
> know it doesn't solve the problem, but I am curious, what is the
> reason behind not exposing the navigation rules publicly? I figure
Craig,
I know this came up before in a converstion we had about dialogs. I
know it doesn't solve the problem, but I am curious, what is the
reason behind not exposing the navigation rules publicly? I figure
you would have some answer being on the expert group for JSF and all.
Michael
On Fri,
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 09:48:40 +0100, Matthias Wessendorf
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David-
>
> > Oops, I forgot. I do have a tiles view handler. I used the MyFaces view
> > handler as a basis for mine, but I did things a little differently.
>
> ah, fine! Have you thought about a NavigationHandle
+1 for something like that!
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 09:48:40 +0100, Matthias Wessendorf
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David-
>
> > Oops, I forgot. I do have a tiles view handler. I used the MyFaces view
> > handler as a basis for mine, but I did things a little differently.
>
> ah, fine! Have you th
David-
Oops, I forgot. I do have a tiles view handler. I used the MyFaces view
handler as a basis for mine, but I did things a little differently.
ah, fine! Have you thought about a NavigationHandler?
I found it usefull to use tiles definitions inside struts-config.xml
for ActionForwards.
I guess
Le Mar 16, 2005, à 12:51 AM, Matthias Wessendorf a écrit :
David,
No, I don't have anything JSF-specific. The extracted version is
simply decoupled from Struts. Otherwise, it's just vanilla Tiles,
except that I
So you have no facility like a ViewHandler or something like that?
Have you looked at
David,
No, I don't have anything JSF-specific. The extracted version is simply
decoupled from Struts. Otherwise, it's just vanilla Tiles, except that I
So you have no facility like a ViewHandler or something like that?
Have you looked at MyFaces' TilesViewHandler ?
-Matthias
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 17:52:17 -0500, Mike Kienenberger
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Geary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I think this is all good stuff, but I'd rather see integration with
> > Tiles instead of reinventing Tiles. Tiles has already covered some of
> > this ground and I see no re
> Ah, okay, I see. This capability, which essentially lets you plug
> component attributes (including managed bean properties) into
> components at runtime, is more fine-grained than Tiles and is certainly
> JSF-specific. In fact, a while back, I had a client ask for something
> like this: they
Ah, okay, I see. This capability, which essentially lets you plug
component attributes (including managed bean properties) into
components at runtime, is more fine-grained than Tiles and is certainly
JSF-specific. In fact, a while back, I had a client ask for something
like this: they wanted to
> David Geary Wrote:
> Perhaps, but assuming we want the same functionality that Tiles
> currently provides, such as XML tile definitions, tile inheritance,
> role-based tiles, controllers, etc., you're going to have to reinvent
> it unless you leverage Tiles somehow. You can have layout compone
Le Mar 12, 2005, à 3:52 PM, Mike Kienenberger a écrit :
David Geary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think this is all good stuff, but I'd rather see integration with
Tiles instead of reinventing Tiles. Tiles has already covered some of
this ground and I see no reason for us to follow.
I haven't used J
> Mike Kienenberger wrote:
> I haven't used JSF enough to see if it fits the same pattern, but the
> component-based frameworks I've used in the past have always made Tiles
> unnecessary. Components are "tiles".
I think that many might prefer using a component XML base technique for page
com
David Geary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think this is all good stuff, but I'd rather see integration with
> Tiles instead of reinventing Tiles. Tiles has already covered some of
> this ground and I see no reason for us to follow.
I haven't used JSF enough to see if it fits the same pattern, b
> I think this is all good stuff, but I'd rather see integration with
> Tiles instead of reinventing Tiles. Tiles has already covered some of
> this ground and I see no reason for us to follow.
I would also like to see tiles integrated. You really have some interesting
points about Tiles an
Le Mar 12, 2005, à 10:56 AM, Matthias Wessendorf a écrit :
David,
you wrote about your extracted Tiles version.
Do you have Tiles JSF components and Tags?
No, I don't have anything JSF-specific. The extracted version is simply
decoupled from Struts. Otherwise, it's just vanilla Tiles, except that
David,
you wrote about your extracted Tiles version.
Do you have Tiles JSF components and Tags?
for instance:
most people do:
but you also could provide a *NamingContainer* for Tiles that handles
the insert.
eg
where id is also the attribute ?
-Matthias
David Geary wrote:
I think this is
I think this is all good stuff, but I'd rather see integration with
Tiles instead of reinventing Tiles. Tiles has already covered some of
this ground and I see no reason for us to follow.
I'd also like to see integration with SiteMesh, which excels at page
decoration (as opposed to Tiles, which
This would be the second attempt but I would like to start a discussion on a
Shale subview component extension.
Currently, The shale subview jsf component provides a post-back method to the
prerender method on the ViewController. The id attribute of the component is
assumed as the managed bean
I would like to start a discussion on a Shale subview component extension.
Currently, The shale subview jsf component provides a post-back method to the
prerender method on the ViewController. The id attribute of the component is
assumed as the managed bean name. This method would be very usef
20 matches
Mail list logo
