On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 13:50:02 -0500, Sean Schofield
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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?

Yes, that's ok ... it is the *client* ids that have to be unique,
which is (in turn) why the default mechanism for calculating client
ids concatenates them together when the parent component is a
NamingContainer (as subview is).

> 
> sean

Craig

> 
> 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]
> > >
> >
> >
>

Reply via email to