Hi Rick,
I agree with you that a component should not dictate its Renderer.
The annotation change does not bind the component and the renderer, it
just generates a
default faces-config.xml such that it works
for us out-of-the-box. Further, it doesn't alter the behavior of any
existing Woodstock components.
The reason we are interested in the Woodstock annotations is because
the work is done -- we don't see the point in duplicating that effort.
Further, we had hoped the article we were writing would bring users to
the Woodstock components via this cool feature...
Thanks!
Ken
richard ratta wrote:
As I've
mentioned before it is not appropriate for a component to dictate its
render classs.
The Woodstock components in particular have chosen to have independent
renderkits where a
component's renderer-type is mapped to a renderer class via a
faces-config.xml entry.
Adding that annotation is a contradiction of the strategy chosen for
the components.
Why not just create your own annotation processor ? This is not a
difficult task.
-rick
Jason Lee wrote:
On 9/11/07, *richard ratta*
<Richard.Ratta@sun.com <mailto:Richard.Ratta@sun.com>>
wrote:
I think I said in every email response that
I don't think this is appropriate in the annotation processor that
is
used by the Woodstock components.
I really don't see why it's not appropriate, but it appears the answer
is a forceful no, so I'll not bother and just work around it. :|
--
Jason Lee, SCJP
Software Architect -- Objectstream, Inc.
JSF RI Dev Team
http://blogs.steeplesoft.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@woodstock.dev.java.net
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@woodstock.dev.java.net