> -----Original Message-----
> From: Heath Borders [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: <x:script /> design
> I like the way you went with that.
> We could probably have a different parameter type that would
> automatically do the document.getElementById call for you.
> I'm really a fan of using the <x:script/> as just a means of
> calling a templated function. We should probably try to take
> this as far as it could go, so that we have a maximally
Yeah, already when I sent the email I was thinking of cleaning it up a
bit. How about:
<x:script>
<x:function name="disableMyInputText" calls="disable"
parameters="myInputText, myOtherInputText"/>
function disable(myInputText, myOtherInputText) {
myInputText.disabled=true;
myOtherInputText.disabled=true;
}
</x:script>
Where "calls" is an optional attribute if a text child node exists. If
it doesn't, a text node would be required, i.e.:
<x:script>
<x:function name="disableMyInputText" parameters="myInputText,
myOtherInputText">
myInputText.disabled=true;
myOtherInputText.disabled=true;
</x:function>
</x:script>
Would render:
<script>
function disableMyInputText() {
disableMyInputText$Parameters(
document.getElementById('weirdParentId:anotherParentId:myInputText'),
document.getElementById('uglyParentId:myOtherInputText')
);
}
function disableMyInputText$Parameters(myInputText, myOtherInputText) {
myInputText.disabled=true;
myOtherInputText.disabled=true;
}
</script>
The nice thing about this is that you could make most of your existing
javascript working without changing it with creative use of x:function
as wrappers to the existing functions.
Kalle
> On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 15:26:00 -0800, Korhonen, Kalle
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Travis Reeder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subject: Re: <x:script /> design
> > > I like it, but for simplicity's sake if the x:script is going to
> > > replace matching id strings, then I don't see the need for having
> > > the for and the id. Why not just the for like so:
> > > <x:script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">
> > > <x:scriptParameter for="myInputText" /> function
> > > disableMyInputText() {
> > > var input = document.getElementById('myInputText');
> > > input.disabled=true;
> > > }
> > > </x:script>
> >
> > Hold on guys.. why would we even need to explicitly call
> > document.getElementById() anymore? Couldn't
> <x:scriptParameter> render
> > that line and handle the whole shebang of getting a
> reference to the
> > object with its appropriate clientId.. i.e. like this:
> > <x:script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">
> > <x:scriptGetElement var="input" for="myInputText" /> function
> > disableMyInputText() { input.disabled=true; } </x:script>
> >
> > The problem with this is that it would create the
> references in global
> > scope, which might not be a huge deal and there are ways to
> deal with
> > that, but anyways, if we think this a little bit further,
> we could do:
> > <x:script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">
> > <x:scriptFunctionParameters id="disableMyInputText" for="disable"
> > elementIds="myInputText, myOtherInputText"/> function
> > disable(myInputText, myOtherInputText) {
> myInputText.disabled=true;
> > myInputText.disabled=true; } </x:script>
> >
> > Which would render:
> > <script>
> > function disableMyInputText() {
> >
> >
> disable(document.getElementById('weirdParentId:anotherParentId:myInput
> > Te
> > xt'),
> >
> > document.getElementById('weirdParentId:anotherParentId:myInputText')
> > );
> > }
> >
> > function disable(myInputText, myOtherInputText) {
> > myInputText.disabled=true; myOtherInputText.disabled=true; }
> > </script>
> >
> > So we get nice parametrized functions that can be reused
> and less to
> > write since we don't need to deal with getting the client ids -
> > win/win situation right? Why wouldn't this work?
> >
> > Kalle
> >
> >
> > > Heath Borders wrote:
> > > >Here is the JSP and rendering hints I was thinking about for the
> > > ><x:script /> tag.
> > > >
> > > >JSP Example:
> > > >
> > > ><h:inputText id="myInputText" value="#{bean.text}" /> <x:script
> > > >language="javascript" type="text/javascript"> <x:scriptParameter
> > > >for="myInputText" id="p_myInputText" /> function
> > > disableMyInputText() {
> > > > var input = document.getElementById('p_myInputText');
> > > > input.disabled=true;
> > > >}
> > > ></x:script>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >The language and type attributes would be optional, and
> default to
> > > >"javascript" and "text/javascript" respectively.
> > > >
> > > >The scriptParameter would use the
> UIComponent.findComponent(String)
> > > >method to find a component within the current
> > > namingContainer with the
> > > >given id. The <x:script> tag would then search its
> > > bodyContent for any
> > > >strings matching the <x:scriptParameter> id's and replace
> > > them with the
> > > >clientId of the UIComponent from the <x:scriptParameter> for
> > > attribute.
> > > >
> > > >This would be a simple way to include javascript (and
> > > appropriate code
> > > >commenting and <noscript> tags for non-javascript
> browsers) in JSF
> > > >code.
> > > >
> > > >I'd appreciate any input on this design.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Travis Reeder
> > > Ecommstats Web Analytics
> > > www.ecommstats.com
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> -Heath Borders-Wing
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
