Hello, First let me tell, that since lifecycle of Portlets is different with Servlets, so the same implementation of the JSF life cycle for servlet is not necessarily good for portlets too.
I didn't find an exact case in Trinidad sources, but there are should be some facilities similar to tomahawk "immediate" attributes ( http://wiki.apache.org/myfaces/How_The_Immediate_Attribute_Works) Which some time short cut the lifecycle. So I think this should be taken into account If we can find a method for handling AJAX requests at same time is also good. The problem is every AJAX call to a portlet will generate a processAction and as a result will refresh all portlets in a page unnecessarily. For more information about this you can see the following articles: http://developers.sun.com/prodtech/portalserver/reference/techart/asynch_rendering.html http://blogs.sun.com/gregz/entry/ajaxportlet_updates#comments http://developers.sun.com/prodtech/portalserver/reference/techart/ajax-portlets.html Arash Rajaeeyan On 10/23/06, Scott O'Bryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
We discussed this in 10.1.3 about how there is no guarantee that the "cleanup" will happen if the life cycle is short-circuited.plus we would need a bunch of touch-points. We would need listeners on the following: 1. Initialize before Restore Component Tree 2. Cleanup after Process Events only when Response Complete or Render Response is the next phase 3. Cleanup after Process Events only when Response Complete or Render Response is the next phase. 4. Cleanup after Process Events only when Response Complete or Render Response is the next phase 5. Cleanup after Process Events 2 6. Initialize before Reader Response 7. Cleanup after Reader Response It would be far easier to run the execution code at the beginning and end of the LifeCycle's "execute" method and at the beginning and end of the lifecycle's "render" method just to make sure we hit all the touch points. Also, some of the cleanup above (ie. cleaning up before Render Response and then reinitializing could be optimized, but do remember that in the portal, each portlet can recieve multiple render-requests for each action request. So the TrinidadFacesContext object should be the same between those calls to render-request. I've just added some code in 10.1.3 that was causing issues with this and process scope. Of course when dealing with servlets, this all becomes trivial. Now that being said, if you still think LifeCycle listeners are the way to go, I would be happy to explore that option. I know this is the type of stuff that LifeCycle listeners were designed for, but I also know there was a reason that Trinidad used filters instead of lifecycle listeners before. Eliminating the need for filters altogether would be a good thing. Scott Adam Winer wrote: > On 10/20/06, Scott O'Bryan < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> My question is >> this, is there any reason we can't provide our own custom lifecycle >> object that decorates the default one and allows us to run our >> initialization code on the execute and render? If so, the code to >> manage things like the TrinidadFacesContext becomes a LOT easier and we >> can rely on some of the stuff already build in to the Bridge Portlets. > > > > What's the advantage of a custom lifecycle over using > a phase listener? > > --Adam >
