I found out a menu component was already available in Tomahawk. It would be
great if it was possible using Clay to build a new Renderer in case the html
generated is not alright for any reason (here for example we have to respect
XHTML strict so it's always a concern) but I guess it's not possible because
a renderer is not a UI component (saved in the view tree).
On 12/5/05, Alexandre Poitras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I see. I guess you're right but again I have a problem I have to ship it
> as a custom component because this kind of menu is quite common. So I guess
> what you suggest is to use a helper class and ship it with the component
> itself.
>
> Thank for your advices. Sorry if I ask many questions but I am trying to
> get the grasp on Shale-Clay and establishing some personal "best practices".
> There are so many possibilities with this component.
>
> On 12/5/05, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On 12/5/05, Alexandre Poitras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > I know about rendered but it's not about changing the visibility but
> > > changing the style class. In fact I want to add 'active' to the value
> > of a
> > > menu element style class, depending of wich one is activated.
> > >
> > > I think I could do it with rendered but my concern is to end up with a
> > lot
> > > of non desired components in memory, ie 2 for each elements of my menu
> >
> > > (active and normal).
> > >
> > > What do you think?
> >
> >
> > To change the style class dynamically, I'd use a value binding on the
> > styleClass property, pointing at a getter method that can calculate the
> > appropriate value based on the current state of the world.
> >
> > Craig
> >
> >
> > On 12/5/05, Gary VanMatre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > You will probably need to look at using the rendered attribute of
> > the
> > > > component. This is the JSF way of changing the visibility
> > dynamically.
> > > >
> > > > rendered="#{mybean.isSomethingVisible}"
> > > > <set name="rendered" value="#{ mybean.isSomethingVisible}"/>
> > > >
> > > > Gary
> > > >
> > > > -------------- Original message --------------
> > > >
> > > > > Guess what?
> > > > >
> > > > > I need an "if component" now (to change some visual attributes).
> > Of
> > > > course,
> > > > > I could code the component but I really prefer to do it in a
> > > declarative
> > > > way
> > > > > à la JSTL. Tags file weren't invented for nothing afterall so I
> > guess
> > > > Shale
> > > > > should follow this direction too. I'll probably try to implement
> > it
> > > > myself
> > > > > if I have enough time tonight.
> > > > >
> > > > > On 12/4/05, Gary VanMatre wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Look great to me. I am just wondering how sessionScopeVar is
> > > > working? Is
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > like the "var" argument in JSTL?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yep, it's like the var. Maybe it would be better to name it
> > "var"
> > > and
> > > > > > provide a "scope" attribute for request or session. I went with
> > > > session to
> > > > > > avoid the same questions about the updatable dataTables.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The difference is that the target "sessionScopeVar" object will
> > be a
> > > > map
> > > > > > and the keys are generated to match the generated el for the
> > > > substitution of
> > > > > > the @managed-bean-name symbol. This allows the default decoding
> > to
> > > > work
> > > > > > without having the responsibility of the dataTable component.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > By the way, what I like about this approach is that we don't
> > have
> > > to
> > > > > > hide
> > > > > > > everything behind JSF components. I was wondering why I would
> > need
> > > > to
> > > > > > write
> > > > > > > a list component while in fact a list or a table is just a
> > > specific
> > > > use
> > > > > > of a
> > > > > > > forEach component. It will allow developpers to develop simple
> > > > > > components
> > > > > > > quickly just by reusing basic building blocks :) That was a
> > big
> > > > weakness
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > JSF in my mind to always have to write code to develop new
> > > > components.
> > > > > > So
> > > > > > > great job! I love this feature.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cool. These "amalgam" functions are a mix of runtime Clay
> > binding
> > > > > > events. Kind of a dynamic flavor of the XML and HTML
> > > > configs/templates.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > By the way, maybe you should consider in your design that some
> > > more
> > > > > > logic
> > > > > > > components might be add in the future (I don't know how many
> > > > Tapestry
> > > > > > has
> > > > > > > but it should give us a good estimation). So I guess putting
> > that
> > > in
> > > > > > > ClayAmalgam is fine for the moment but it can become bloated
> > over
> > > > time.
> > > > > > Just
> > > > > > > my two cents.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I agree about the bloating of the ClayAmalgam class. Even if it
> > was
> > > > > > organized similar to the JSTL libraries (c, fmt, x,..) it would
> > be
> > > > > > bloated. I guess we could break each function out into a
> > separate
> > > > class.
> > > > > > Then we might have ClayAmalgamImport, ClayAmalgamOut,
> > > > > > ClayAmalgamForEach. Or, make "ClayAmalgam" the managed bean name
> > of
> > > a
> > > > map
> > > > > > in application scope that contains Out, Import and ForEach
> > entries.
> > > > Maybe
> > > > > > it will be more clear when we have a few more.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Alexandre Poitras
> > > > > > > Québec, Canada
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Gary
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Alexandre Poitras
> > > > > Québec, Canada
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Alexandre Poitras
> > > Québec, Canada
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Alexandre Poitras
> Québec, Canada
--
Alexandre Poitras
Québec, Canada
