Liferay Faces has a similar feature that uses the attribute name "clientKey" since it refers to a lookup in a key/value map in the client-side JS.
For example:
<alloy:button onclick="Liferay.component('dialogKey1').toggle();">
<alloy:dialog clientKey="dialogKey1">
...
</alloy:dialog>
</alloy:button>
> On Jan 13, 2015, at 3:44 PM, manfred riem <manfred.riem_at_oracle.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Çağatay,
>
> You willing and able to research on how to standardize this and contribute it back to the RI?
>
> Manfred
>
> On 1/13/15, 1:50 PM, Josh Juneau wrote:
>>
>> To All-
>>
>> I agree that a solution to this issue would require some assumption on how things are structured. I prefer the technique utilized in PrimeFaces, whereby you are able to reference components via their widgetVar, rather than by ID. If effort were to be spent on some resolution to this issue, I'd rather see a standardized implementation of the widgetVar solution that is present in the PrimeFaces JavaScript API.
>>
>> Just my 2 cents.
>>
>> Best Regards
>>
>> Josh Juneau
>> juneau001_at_gmail.com <mailto:juneau001_at_gmail.com>
>> http://jj-blogger.blogspot.com <http://jj-blogger.blogspot.com/>
>> https://www.apress.com/index.php/author/author/view/id/1866 <https://www.apress.com/index.php/author/author/view/id/1866>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 11:46 AM, manfred riem <manfred.riem_at_oracle.com <mailto:manfred.riem_at_oracle.com>> wrote:
>> Hi Kito,
>>
>> It took it as the JavaScript functions getClientId() or getClientId('whatever') as it is said to be JS function.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Manfred
>>
>>
>>
>> On 1/12/15, 11:33 AM, Kito Mann wrote:
>>>
>>> Is the JIRA issue just asking about EL evaluation (as the example implies), or is it referring to a real JavaScript function?
>>>
>>> In other words, are they asking about this:
>>>
>>> <h:button id="button1"
>>> onclick="button_setEnabled(#{getClientId('button2')},
>>> false);button_clicked(#{getClientId('button1')};return"... />
>>>
>>> or:
>>>
>>> <h:button id="button1"
>>> onclick="button_setEnabled(getClientId('button2'),
>>> false);button_clicked(getClientId('button1');return"... />
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 12:27 PM, manfred riem <manfred.riem_at_oracle.com <mailto:manfred.riem_at_oracle.com>> wrote:
>>> Hi Kito,
>>>
>>> Ughh, as you pointed out the client id is already there. My brain just stopped working :(.
>>>
>>> However I still want to mark this issue as "Won't fix" as there is no way of knowing how a specific component is being rendered and which HTML element corresponds to the client id of the component. And no I don't want to make any assumption on how it is structured.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>> Manfred
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1/12/15, 11:13 AM, Kito Mann wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Manfred, can you articulate your objection more clearly? We definitely know the client id before the JavaScript executes, since it executes on the client :-).
>>>>
>>>> ___
>>>>
>>>> Kito D. Mann | @kito99 | Author, JSF in Action
>>>> Virtua, Inc. | http://www.virtua.com <http://www.virtua.com/> | JSF/Java EE training and consulting
>>>> http://www.JSFCentral.com <http://www.jsfcentral.com/> | @jsfcentral
>>>> +1 203-998-0403 <tel:%2B1%20203-998-0403>
>>>>
>>>> * Listen to the Enterprise Java Newscast: http:// <http://blogs.jsfcentral.com/JSFNewscast/>enterprisejavanews.com <http://ww.enterprisejavanews.com/>
>>>> * JSFCentral Interviews Podcast: http://www.jsfcentral.com/resources/jsfcentralpodcasts/ <http://www.jsfcentral.com/resources/jsfcentralpodcasts/>
>>>> * Sign up for the JSFCentral Newsletter: http://oi.vresp.com/?fid=ac048d0e17 <http://oi.vresp.com/?fid=ac048d0e17>
>>>> On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 12:00 PM, manfred riem <manfred.riem_at_oracle.com <mailto:manfred.riem_at_oracle.com>> wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> I like to close https://java.net/jira/browse/JAVASERVERFACES_SPEC_PUBLIC-49 <https://java.net/jira/browse/JAVASERVERFACES_SPEC_PUBLIC-49> as "Won't fix" as this request suffers from the chicken and the egg problem. In this particular case we cannot make sure the client id is rendered before the JavaScript executes.
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>> Manfred
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>