Matthias,
I think that's true as well. There is no guaranteed order for phase
listeners and whatnot. Ideally our initialization needs to happen
before other phase listeners run.
Scott
Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
Just a question regarding this:
-Isn't it the case that you can't specifiy a *chaining* for
PhaseListeners?
Only like
_a.jar
b.jar
z_myfaces.jar
So when you register 5 for Phase #1 you can have issues with that,
right ?
At least when one of the PhaseListeners in front your yours does
something wrong/ugly?
My understanding to a custom lifecycle is that it doesn't bother with
the *regular* Lifecycle's PhaseListeners.
Thanks,
Matthias
On 10/22/06, Adam Winer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
