In addressing the first two abouts.
1) Yes, the guideline 04029 is suggesting all component IDs. Having discussed this again internally there is still two camps of thought, and it can be split between developers and QAs having different needs. To accomodate the two different view points, as I've done in the ADF Code Guidelines for one of the rules, I'll document two different versions of the rule "a" a new rule suited toward developers and "b" the original rule suited towards QA. I then leave the reader to decide which to choose.
In discussing the IDs with internal development staff, the rule new rule "a" states rather than changing all IDs, there are certain circumstances where the ID should be changed. For documentation purposes that new rule and the circumstances are as follows:
• [ADFng2-04064a] - Component ID format – For the majority of UI component IDs generated by JDeveloper leave the ID as that generated. However for any UI component that is:
o Referred to via a partialTrigger
o Has its clientComponent=true
o Or looked up programmatically via a bean
• Change the generated component ID such that is has a prefix in lowercase, drop the numeral suffix, and give the rest of the name a meaningful name in camelcase.
You may also notice the new rule number. As the original rule was overloaded with conditions I've split rule 04029 into separately 04029 and 04064. Now rule 04029 deals with "all components should have IDs where permissible", and the new rule 04064 "a" and "b" that deal with the format of the ID.
2) In addressing the two different versions of the new rule 04064 I've also included a small example of an inputForm based on the Departments table from the HR schema.
In addition I've also included a section to detail the currently generated ID prefixes per component for reference purposes, approximately 83 components.