Hmmm. I've been hearing some conflicting information then. I thought the uniqueness is only needed per container. I thought it was technically ok to have two subviews (each with different id) and have each one have a child component with the same id.
Is that ok? sean On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 18:55:50 +0100, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Faces does require that the clientId's are unique. > > sure! that's why <f:subview /> has also an id attribute > > so you could use <h:form id="form"/> > > e.g. inside of <subview id="search"/> > and <f:subview id="foo"/> > > result will be search:form > and foo:form > > Regards, > Matthias > > > When Faces restores the view, it uses the > > UIComponent.findComponent(String) method to try to restore > > the serialized components. If two components have the same > > clientId, then it could cause the tree to be rendered incorrectly. > > > > On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 11:51:17 -0500, Sean Schofield > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I'm not sure that convertClientId is the proper place for this > > > > logic. > > > > > > > > convertClientId seems like its there just to change the > > clientId to > > > > conform with specific renderer restrictions, independent of the > > > > UIComponent. > > > > > > The way I see it, the uniqueness of the id's can be considered a > > > specific renderer restriction. Its only XHTML that requires unique > > > ids, not faces. I think that is the key. If faces required it as > > > well, then I would agree, it wouldn't belong in the renderer. > > > > > > > -Heath Borders-Wing > > > > > > sean > > > > > > > > > -- > > -Heath Borders-Wing > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >
