Perhaps if you changed the name to renderAdditionalTags and renderPreliminaryTags it might be more palatable.
A perfect use case is if you want to create a more programmer friendly checkBox implementation. The easy answer is to have a parallel field which is hidden with the text values of 'true' or 'false' with javascript syncronizing the values to guarantee a result returned. Edgar > -----Original Message----- > From: Sgarlata Matt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, September 29, 2003 7:28 AM > To: Struts Developers List > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Accept patches to make html taglib more extensible > > > FYI I'm about halfway through implementing proposal A. Since > David voted against proposal B I am going to drop the issue > ;) More comments below... > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Leland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2003 10:06 PM > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Accept patches to make html taglib more extensible > > > > >B) Add a new renderExtraAttributes() method that gives people the > > >chance > to > > >throw non-standard HTML into their tags that extend from > Struts tags. > > > > > ><snip from="BaseFieldTag.java"> > > >results.append("\""); results.append(this.prepareEventHandlers()); > > >results.append(this.prepareStyles()); > > >results.append(this.getElementClose()); > > > > > ><matts-idea> > > >results.append(renderExtraAttributes()); > > ></matt-sidea> > > > > > >return results.toString(); > > ></snip> > > > > > >Use Case for Part B: > > > > > >Unfortunately I still can't think of a good HTML 4.01 > compliant use > > >case > for > > >renderExtraAttributes(), but here is a weak try at it. > > > > > No solid use case will allways get my -1. I don't want to see > > unnecessary methods added just because they might somehow prove > > useful. I will vote for adding a method that will be used for a > > specific purpose. I like the idea of this hook, and I don't > personally > > care if it is valid HTML 4.01 is produced or not, > > that is YOUR choice! Because if you NEED to do this you're > going to do > > it anyway, just not as easily. > > I agree that whether or not HTML 4.01 compliant code is > rendered by a JSP tag is the choice of the developer of the > tag, but even if we get a solid use case it sounds like David > will veto it. > > > Also when you say invalid HTML 4.01 > > do you mean specific to say IE 6.0 or > > do you mean just adding additional HTML which isn't > really invalid? > > I meant adding things that were browser-specific, like for IE 6.0. > > Matt > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
