On 11/1/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> i mean the action should be called VISIBLE instead of RENDER and we
> should also have isVisibleAllowed() just like we have
> isEnabled()/isEnabledAllowed()
thats just isRenderedAllowed() thats the same thing. Just different name
rename it if you want.
makes more sense?
>
> that way the check in enclosure is:
>
> if (child.isvisible()&&child.isvisibleallowed()) { ...}
and thats the same as child.isVisible() && child.isRenderedAllowed()
which is the same is child.isVisibleInHierarchy() (that only also walks the
hierarchy)
johan
-igor
>
>
> On 11/1/07, Maurice Marrink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Oct 31, 2007 9:58 PM, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > there seems to be a bit of a disconnect between "render" in auth and
> > > our general component visibility concept. perhaps it might be an
> > > improvement to aligh auth strategy with visibility rather then
> > > render...what do others think?
> >
> > What exactly do you mean by this? Do you want isVisible to also check
> > permission for the render action?
> >
> > Maurice
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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]
>
>
