On 3/7/07, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
what I didn't like this morning, for fixing a bug on MyFAces' JSF 1.2
UIViewRoot is,
that I need to put this statement:
/**///getPhaseListeners
to get a *ignored* getter for the phaseListeners property.
Well, you need this if you're going to try to compile
the template, and you need to refer to a method that will
be auto-generated from code that isn't auto-generated.
If you're not compiling the template, that's not necessary.
It's certainly not pretty - an annotation of some sort
would be way better - but it has the distinct advantage
of being a piece of logic that I could code in minutes.
(The principle of "Good Enough" applies. :) )
-- Adam
The rest is fine, at least the part I was dealing w/ in order to get
some stuff working in Trinidad
-M
On 3/7/07, Adam Winer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In general, I think the approach used by the faces plugin
> is a really good thing. You want as much autogenerated
> as possible (this made upgrading to JSF 1.2 vastly easier
> than without it). And the specific approach actually
> allows for treating the template .java files as fully
> compileable sources - you can add them to your IDE
> and get full code insight, syntax checking, etc. Most
> systems I've seen for templated code don't offer that;
> the templated Java is pseudo-code that no IDE will
> accept.
>
> I agree with Bruno that the plugin could definitely
> be improved... some injection might be good,
> velocity templates for method generation would
> probably be waaaay easier than all the Java code, etc.
>
> -- Adam
>
>
> On 3/7/07, Bruno Aranda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > IMO I prefer to use as much as I can the code autogenerated without
> > having to add new code to the methods (delegating all this to the code
> > generator). This eases the process of migrating code. Adding very
> > specific code to methods might break future migrations (e.g. migrating
> > tomahawk components to use trinidad state management), as the specific
> > code could no longer compile. Of course, this can be a minor thing so
> > I am open to this possibility of "injecting" code before/after the
> > method's logic, as aspects do. How would you do it, though?
> > And of course, there is a great space for improving in the plugin and
> > it would be wonderful at some point to have it based in velocity,
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Bruno
> >
> > On 07/03/07, Mathias Brökelmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > During myfaces 1.2 development I came across the maven-faces-plugin from
> > > trinidad. AFAIK it uses some xml files which contains the model for
> > > the generated components. This saves a lot of time to quickly get new
> > > components into work. But there is room to improve it.
> > >
> > > Currently customizing the generated component classes requires to
> > > write a template file (like UIViewRootTemplate.java) which contains
> > > custom code. I don't like this approach. Since there is no chance to
> > > modify generated methods and to add custom code. That is even worse if
> > > you only want to add something to save/restore state methods or to add
> > > some parameter checking for setters. I've already seen that some dirty
> > > hacks are implemented to make things work - at least for using it in
myfaces.
> > >
> > > IMO there is a way to solve some of the problems by still having
> > > generated code. I'm thinking of an "in place editing" the generated
> > > code inside special marks like this:
> > >
> > > public void setXXX(String xxx)
> > > {
> > > /* start custom code */
> > > // do something before the generated code
> > > /* end custom code */
> > >
> > > _XXX = xxx;
> > >
> > > /* start custom code */
> > > // do something after the generated code
> > > /* end custom code */
> > > }
> > >
> > > WDYT?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Mathias
> > >
> >
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
http://tinyurl.com/fmywh
further stuff:
blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
