richard ratta wrote:
> Ken Paulsen wrote:
>> Gregory Murphy wrote:
>>> Ken Paulsen wrote:
>>>> Adding the @Renderer annotation to a UIComponent class works
>>>> provided that you use the rendererClass property as well... AND you
>>>> don't have a @Component annotation. The way the current annotation
>>>> processor is written, it doesn't support 2 annotations on a single
>>>> class... or at least I haven't figured out the correct syntax to
>>>> get that to work. I think the problem is that when you specify
>>>> both annotations, the first annotation annotates the 2nd annotation
>>>> instead of both annotating the class. Separating w/ commas didn't
>>>> seem to help. There's a good change I'm doing something wrong when
>>>> defining the annotation, though.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> An annotation may use another annotation as the type of one of its
>>> elements, but you can't annotate an annotation. I don't know enough
>>> about formal languages to be able to explain why this is.
>>
>> I'm not sure of the details either... however, when I tried doing:
>>
>> @Renderer...
>> @Component...
>>
>> It didn't process the @Renderer annotation at all. It did if I
>> removed the @Component one. Anyway, in my test cases, I was doing
>> the following:
>>
>> @Component(rendererClass="..." ...)
>
> But this association is not appropriate.
> A component should not dictate its renderer-class.
I agree. This doesn't dictate it. It *optionally* generates a default
which only manifests itself in the faces-config.xml file. This can
either be changed by an end user, or overriden by an end user.
The value of this change comes in simplifying the development process,
nothing more.
Ken
>
> -rick
>
>>
>> Which was more concise and worked well.
>>
>> Ken
>>
>>>
>>> The current library and processor do support multiple renderer
>>> annotations, so that one renderer can be assigned to more than one
>>> component family. For example:
>>>
>>> @Renderer({
>>> @Renders(componentFamily="org.example.input"),
>>> @Renders(componentFamily="org.example.output")
>>> })
>>> public class MyFavoriteRenderer {
>>> }
>>>
>>> So you can use a single template renderer with a whole mess of
>>> components, but you have to annotate the renderer to create these
>>> associations, not the components. If users are getting the template
>>> renderer as part of a third party JAR, they could always extend it,
>>> and annotate the extension.
>>>
>>> // Gregory
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_woodstock.dev.java.net
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_woodstock.dev.java.net
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_woodstock.dev.java.net
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_woodstock.dev.java.net
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_woodstock.dev.java.net
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_woodstock.dev.java.net
>