Hi,
I also like f:channel name instead of f:socket.
A component is not strictly necessary but we definitely need an easy to use client side api to connect and send messages. Bauke summarized this really well.
Regards,
Cagatay Civici
PrimeFaces Lead
PrimeTek Informatics
www.primefaces.org
On Aug 15, 2015, 19:57, at 19:57, "Michael Müller" <michael.mueller_at_mueller-bruehl.de> wrote:
>Hi All,
>
>EB> 2. I opted not to have a corresponding UIComponent, whereas in
>EB> PrimeFaces there is a corresponding UIComponent and Renderer [3].
>EB> I am taking f:ajax as a model in this regard. I'd like to hear
>EB> from Cagatay why he found it necessary to have a backing
>EB> UIComponent.
>
>JJ> - Given that there will be no UIComponent to accompany the new
>JJ> feature, the chosen transport could then drive the type of
>JJ> UICompnent that will be used by the developer. For instance, a
>JJ> WebSocket transport could utilize a UIInput, whereas an SSE could
>JJ> utilize a UIOutput component only.
>
>It seems to be natural to connect a socket (I personally would prefer
>"f:channel" over "f:socket" because this is neutral whereas "socket"
>implies websocket ousting SSE as fallback) to a UIComponent. The
>approach as discussed so far, allows the user to connect it (like
>f:ajax) to any UIComponent. And it should be possible to connect SSE to
>
>a input element too, although this channel provides a one way
>connection
>only.
>
>But what about non-UIComponents? Shall we consider that a JSF user
>might
>"connect" it to some client side (JavaScript) object?
>
>And, should it be implemented as a tag only? Thinking of HTML friendly
>coding, it would be great, to implement it as HTML attribute also (same
>
>thoughts might be applied to other tags):
>
><h:inputText ...>
> <f:socket.../>
></h:inputText>
>
>Now, using HTML friendly style, a tag seems to pollute the HTML:
>
><input type="text" jsf:value=...>
> <f:socket.../>
></input>
>
>In my opinion, this integrates much better into HTML:
>
><input type="text" jsf:value=... jsf:socket.../>
>
>Can we implement this feature (as well as elder ones) as attribute
>beside the tag implementation?
>
>Just my two pence...
>
>Herzliche Grüße - Best Regards,
>
>Michael Müller
>
>Read my book "Web Development with Java and JSF":
>https://leanpub.com/jsf