1) it is against the spec behaviour
Of course you are absolutely right with this therefore I'd make it an optional feature, being able to turn it on with a configuration parameters
2) since in JSF 1.1 navigation outcomes are string it is completely possible for a programmer to have a syntax error in out comes
Sorry don't get your point here, if an action returns a misspelled outcome or a misspelled viewId you would not want to navigate in both cases right?
3) this make confusion between page names and outcomes (navigation events)
Confusion is exactly the point, what I get told as the main reason not to choose JSF by many users considering it is: "It is to complex for me I have to write all those xml-files to get just Hello world running" That would be a way for them with one configuration file less.
4) I think outcomes and names of JSF pages should stay separate. JSF navigation is like an finite state machine (FSM) or finite state automaton, states are pages and outcomes are input to the automaton, this keeps modeling UI very simple. and also it makes it possible for formal verification of JSF application, with available tools.
Good point. But again, no one would be forced to use the feature, I'd say it's for starters and lazy programmers, the others can leave it turned off. All together, I see your points, but I don't understand what harm could be caused by an optional feature?
On 10/30/06, Ernst Fastl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi! > > At the moment when no navigation case for an outcome is found > the navigationHandler decides to stay at the same view. I think > an option for web.xml would be useful to tell the navigationHandler > if no navigation case for an outcome is found, but the outcome > matches a viewId to navigate to this view id. > > This idea was mainly driven by a lot of jsf-projects where I saw for each > view id: > > <navigation-rule> > <from-view-id>*</from-view-id> > <navigation-case> > <from-outcome>viewId</from-outcome> > <to-view-id>/viewId.xhtml</to-view-id> > <redirect/> > </navigation-case> > ... > > > which seems kind of unnecessary to me > > what do you think about that? > > regards > > Ernst >
