David Sean Taylor wrote: > Shinsuke SUGAYA wrote: > >>Hi Ate, >> >>Thank you for the proper advice. >>Since each solution(proposing it to MyFaces and proposing to Portal >>Briges) has the benefit, actually, I hovered between them. For me, >>the easy way was to propose it to Portal Bridges. So, I did that.. >>But, as you mentioned, since MyFaces team may be interested in it, >>I should have proposed it to MyFaces first. Anyway, I'll contact to >>MyFaces team. >> >>Some components, such as inputHtml, use AddResource class to handle >>some tags in <head>. Therefore, if you want to use it, you have to >>use ExtensionsFilter in portal's web.xml or to manage the tags in >><head>. IMO, I do not think ExtensionsFilter is proper in Portlet. >>So, in my suggestion, MyFacesGenericPortlet handle the tag to >>support the components. > > > Is this a replacement for the current JSF code in the JSF Bridge?
No. I do not think standard JSF put tags into <head>. So, my suggestion is not needed. > Or is it meant to be another, co-existing solution? I think I can say yes. My suggestion is for MyFaces. MyFaces has some extended components(called Tomahawk). These components do not work on J2(JS2-316). So, if using this MyFaces bridge, they works :) I summarized as below: If user want to use only JSF standard components.. -> use JSF bridge If user want to use JSF standard components and Tomahawk.. -> use my suggestion Thanks, shinsuke __________________________________ Save the earth http://pr.mail.yahoo.co.jp/ondanka/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
