Proposal to integrate handlers from tagext

[skybber]

Proposal to integrate handlers from tagext

[BalusC]

Thank you for the proposal. However, I'm not exactly sure what its benefits are over "standard" tagfiles and JSTL (c:if, c:set, c:choose, etc).

[skybber]

there are 2 basic benefits:

1. There is no support to define custom FACELET component in the same way like the standard composite components is done. Composite components has an interface section and an implementation section, this is very nice an it is missing in custom FACELETS components. Next the standard composite component creates a new component in the JSF tree. So std composite components cant be used to create non-component tag as p:ajax. Another example is p:column component used in composite component cant be in p:table since p:table expects p:column as a child. Tagext components doesn;t creates any parent component like std composite components. There are many restriction of standard composite component that can be solved by this library.
2. Next benefit shows following example. Lets have custom FACELET component my:table with a parameter "value" - my:dataTable value="#{bean.list} Parameter "value" is passed by varMapper. Content of the my:table is injected in the FACELET component by ui:insert In this case the value parameter stays in the mapper, so all injected components has the implicit "value" ! Tagext solves id by parameter mapping. In this case "value" will be mapped to _value in implementation section and original "value" parameter is hidden so there will be no problems with ui:insert.

We use primefaces in our project. Just now we don't use the primefaces components directly. All components are wrapped by tagext components (we have our:datatable instead p:dataTable etc..) . So we can easily define default parameters, default behaviour etc. It allows changing JSF<->primefaces <-> richfaces on the fly. In this way we migrated our project (500 JSF pages, 100.000 LOC) from Richfaces 4.2 to Primefaces4 in 1.5 month in 2 mans.

[skybber]

Hi, I've closed this issue since the implementation is Mojarra specific and many issues connected with the facelet tags is solved in Myfaces. But in general ... it would be nice if the facelet tags have interface/implementation sections like composite components have.

[arjantijms]

But in general ... it would be nice if the facelet tags have interface/implementation sections like composite components have.

For sure! There's an issue for that at the JSF spec tracker, see https://java.net/jira/browse/JAVASERVERFACES_SPEC_PUBLIC-1196

(if you agree with the issue, please vote for it ;))