I won't be closing out every single one. There will be a lot more to go ;)
regards, Martin On 9/21/06, Mike Kienenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hey Martin, I just want to apologize in advance for slowing down your attempt to single-handedly close out every JIRA issue. :-) On 9/21/06, Mike Kienenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Old value > > msg = MessageUtils.getMessage(FacesMessage.SEVERITY_ERROR, message, args); > > New Value: > > Locale locale = MessageUtils.getCurrentLocale(); > String summaryText = MessageUtils.substituteParams(locale, > getSummaryMessage(), args); > String detailText = MessageUtils.substituteParams(locale, message, args); > msg = new FacesMessage(FacesMessage.SEVERITY_ERROR, summaryText, detailText); > > I might be misreading either the original code or the new code, but it > looks like Old Value != New value. Maybe I'm wrong, and in the case > where getSummaryMessage() == null, it's the same thing, though. > > > > On 9/21/06, Martin Marinschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Yes, that will work, but only if we save the additional attribute :-/ > > > > You don't have a summaryMessage in there right now - I don't understand your > > > > "summaryMessage + detailMessage, not simply detailMessage." comment. > > > > regards, > > > > Martin > > > > > > On 9/21/06, Mike Kienenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Also, message = summaryMessage + detailMessage, not simply detailMessage. > > > > > > At least, I'm pretty sure that's how it currently works. > > > > > > On 9/21/06, Martin Marinschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Sorry, yes, I meant validator as well. Well, at least the property > > > > setting - getting - restoreState and saveState parts are generated. So > > > > where would you incorporate the check? > > > > > > > > Maybe we should just get rid of the detailMessage at all, and use > > > > message instead. > > > > > > > > regards, > > > > > > > > Martin > > > > > > > > On 9/21/06, Mike Kienenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > In case it's not clear, by "component" I really mean validator in this context. > > > > > > > > > > On 9/21/06, Mike Kienenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > On 9/21/06, Martin Marinschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > Hmmm... Why not provide a custom Facelets-Tag for this? > > > > > > > > > > > > Because that's the wrong approach to fixing the problem. > > > > > > > > > > > > > The thing is that also the component will be generated - so we can't > > > > > > > really have much custom code there, right? > > > > > > > > > > > > Why would the component be generated? That's where all of the > > > > > > component-specific logic is. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > http://www.irian.at > > > > > > > > Your JSF powerhouse - > > > > JSF Consulting, Development and > > > > Courses in English and German > > > > > > > > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > http://www.irian.at > > > > Your JSF powerhouse - > > JSF Consulting, Development and > > Courses in English and German > > > > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces > > >
-- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
