I like this approach as well, better than what we have discussed so far.
+1,
So Bauke, do you propose we don’t do anything since it can be already solved with current APIs?
Cagatay Civici
PrimeFaces Lead
PrimeTek Informatics
www.primefaces.org
On Sunday 27 September 2015 at 20:20, Bauke Scholtz wrote:
> FYI: with JSF 2.2 passthrough elements it's possible to give a custom layout to h:selectOneRadio by simply explicitly setting the "name" attribute as passthrough attribute. It would override the default value. An example can be found in this answer: http://stackoverflow.com/a/7435111/157882
>
> <!-- This makes sure that the submitted value ends up in model. --> <f:metadata> <f:viewParam name="foo" value="#{bean.selectedFoo}" /> </f:metadata> <!-- Just markup them the way you want! --> <ul> <ui:repeat value="#{bean.availableFoos}" var="availableFoo"> <li> <input type="radio" jsf:id="foo" a:name="foo" value="#{availableFoo}"> <f:passThroughAttribute name="checked" value="#{availableFoo eq bean.selectedFoo ? 'checked' : null}" /> </input> </li> </ui:repeat> </ul>
>
> Cheers, B
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 4:32 AM, Leonardo Uribe <leonardo.uribe_at_irian.at (mailto:leonardo.uribe_at_irian.at)> wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > +1, there are good reasons to add this feature to the standard:
> >
> > - Implemented over and over in different component libraries.
> > - Increase flexibility in layout
> >
> > But I have to mention this feature has proven to cause issues with ajax (execute and render multiple components). The problem is each component has different id but the same "group" or in other words the same name attribute. An update over the group involves update each related component. Just something to think about before implement this feature.
> >
> > regards,
> >
> > Leonardo Uribe
> >
> >
> > 2015-08-27 4:37 GMT-05:00 Bauke Scholtz <balusc_at_gmail.com (mailto:balusc_at_gmail.com)>:
> > > I forgot the ID attribute in case 2, it should of course be <h:selectOneRadio id="radioId" ... />.
> > >
> > > Cheers, B
> > >
> > > On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 11:36 AM, Bauke Scholtz <balusc_at_gmail.com (mailto:balusc_at_gmail.com)> wrote:
> > > > To the point, we need to have a renderer (or perhaps a new component) which makes the below cases possible:
> > > >
> > > > 1:
> > > > <h:dataTable value="#{bean.items}" var="item">
> > > > <h:column>
> > > > <h:selectOneRadio group="foo" value="#{bean.selectedItem}" itemValue="#{item}" />
> > > > </h:column>
> > > > </h:dataTable>
> > > >
> > > > 2:
> > > > <ui:repeat value="#{bean.items}" var="item">
> > > > <h:outputLabel for="radioId" value="#{item.label}" />
> > > > <h:selectOneRadio group="foo" value="#{bean.selectedItemValue}" itemValue="#{item.value}" />
> > > > <br/>
> > > > </ui:repeat>
> > > >
> > > > 3:
> > > > <h:selectOneRadio group="foo" value="#{bean.selectedItem}" itemValue="foo" />
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > <h:selectOneRadio group="foo" value="#{bean.selectedItem}" itemValue="bar" />
> > > >
> > > > <h:selectOneRadio group="foo" value="#{bean.selectedItem}" itemValue="baz" />
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The "group" and "itemValue" attributes are new. All it renders is solely an <input type="radio"> (no table, no list, no label).
> > > >
> > > > The "group" must be relative to the naming container parent and represent the common HTML name. Instead of "group" we could perhaps also use a "for" which then refers a common parent component, e.g. for="tableId", for="repeatId", for="formId", etc. Only the latter case becomes somewhat restrictive.
> > > >
> > > > The "itemValue" speaks for itself. The label is just to be provided by <h:outputLabel> the usual way.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers, B
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 12:18 PM, arjan tijms <arjan.tijms_at_gmail.com (mailto:arjan.tijms_at_gmail.com)> wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 6:18 AM, Josh Juneau <juneau001_at_gmail.com (mailto:juneau001_at_gmail.com)> wrote:
> > > > > >These trivial
> > > > > > issues with JSF have led to many arguments against using the framework. The
> > > > > > easier it is made for beginners, the better in my opinion.
> > > > >
> > > > > For beginners especially, but moderately advanced users as well. We've
> > > > > seen this time and again with OmniFaces. Trivial functionality that in
> > > > > essence encapsulates only a few lines of code using the standard JSF
> > > > > API. Yet, users greatly appreciate it.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Josh Juneau
> > > > > > juneau001_at_gmail.com (mailto:juneau001_at_gmail.com)
> > > > > > http://jj-blogger.blogspot.com
> > > > > > https://www.apress.com/index.php/author/author/view/id/1866
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 1:08 PM, arjan tijms <arjan.tijms_at_gmail.com (mailto:arjan.tijms_at_gmail.com)> wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> I agree with Bauke, this has been asked for a lot of times by users. I
> > > > > >> had a bunch of personal messages in response to my JSF 2.3 wish list
> > > > > >> asking for exactly this.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Such a component seems to be "basic" enough to be a good candidate for
> > > > > >> inclusion in the JSF standard component set.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Kind regards,
> > > > > >> Arjan Tijms
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 7:27 PM, Bauke Scholtz <balusc_at_gmail.com (mailto:balusc_at_gmail.com)> wrote:
> > > > > >> > I vote against. This is one of most common requirements from the
> > > > > >> > community.
> > > > > >> > I'd like to see this to end up in standard component set too. A custom
> > > > > >> > renderer is not trivial to starters, for sure not if you'd like to use
> > > > > >> > it in
> > > > > >> > an repeater component like <h:dataTable><h:column><h:selectOneRadio>
> > > > > >> > and/or
> > > > > >> > if you want to have a separate <h:outputLabel> for each item.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Cheers, B
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 7:16 PM, manfred riem <manfred.riem_at_oracle.com (mailto:manfred.riem_at_oracle.com)>
> > > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> Hi all,
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> I like to close this one as "Won't fix" as well as it is fairly easy to
> > > > > >> >> register your own renderer.
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> To introduce a new component for it seems overkill.
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> Thoughts?
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> Note I like to close the loop on this one before 8/26.
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> Thanks!
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >> Kind regards,
> > > > > >> >> Manfred Riem
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >>
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>