Found some more info. Lets move the discussion to TOMAHAWK-738.
Sean On 10/16/06, Sean Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well it worked fine before. Now I get ... java.lang.IllegalStateException: Unknown object type javax.faces.component.UIComponentBase.restoreAttachedState(UIComponentBase.java:1436) org.apache.myfaces.custom.savestate.UISaveState.restoreState(UISaveState.java:74) javax.faces.component.UIComponentBase.processRestoreState(UIComponentBase.java:1147) javax.faces.component.UIComponentBase.processRestoreState(UIComponentBase.java:1163) javax.faces.component.UIComponentBase.processRestoreState(UIComponentBase.java:1163) I will try to come up with a unit test to prove the failure. I noticed Catagay added one to test the usecase he was fixing. This should be our standard practice from now on. We have a distressingly small number of testcases which is really starting to come back and bite us now. Sean On 10/16/06, Martin Marinschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't see how this would break either. > > regards, > > Martin > > On 10/16/06, Cagatay Civici <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I mean if an object(not List) is serializable saveAttachedState simply > > returns it so; > > > > values[1] = getValue() instanceof StateHolder ? saveAttachedState(context, > > getValue()) : getValue(); > > > > doesn't matter because saveAttachedState(context, getValue()) and getValue() > > are same for Serializable. > > > > Still I couldn't see why it breaks, an example should help. > > > > > > On 10/16/06, Cagatay Civici <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > Sean, I see that Serializable is already supported in saveAttachedState. > > > > > > I couldn't get why it's failing in your case, can you give more details? > > > > > > Cagatay > > > > > > > > > > > > On 10/16/06, Sean Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Catagay this breaks my code. Serializable should also be supported. > > > > I have a bunch of Hibernate domain objects that are serializable that > > > > I use in a multi page table where I need save state. I'm going to > > > > reopen the JIRA issue. > > > > > > > > Sean > > > > > > > > On 10/15/06, Cagatay Civici <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Yes sure, I'll apply the same to 1.1.4. > > > > > > > > > > Cagatay > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 10/15/06, Wendy Smoak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > On 10/15/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > Author: cagatay > > > > > > > Date: Sun Oct 15 03:36:01 2006 > > > > > > > New Revision: 464151 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > URL: > > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=464151 > > > > > > > Log: > > > > > > > Fix for TOMAHAWK-738 > > > > > > > > > > > > Does this need to be applied to the branch for 1.1.4? > > > > > > > > > > > > Also... can you please include a short description of the change in > > > > > > addition to the JIRA issue number? It really helps when people who > > > > > > aren't familiar with the code are reviewing commits. And as great > > as > > > > > > JIRA is, the commit logs will probably outlive it. :) > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Wendy > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > http://www.irian.at > > Your JSF powerhouse - > JSF Consulting, Development and > Courses in English and German > > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces >
