I created a ticket for this: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TRINIDAD-1612
and I also created a subtask to put the new event handling system into the lifecycle methods; => https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TRINIDAD-1614 On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 1:27 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <mat...@apache.org> wrote: > Hi, > > the spec defines two new lifecycle methods for JSF 2.0: > protected void pushComponentToEL(FacesContext context); > protected void popComponentFromEL(FacesContext context) > > These are the base contract from the new implicit #{component} EL. > > The spec wants an implementation to call these new methods inside of > the lifecycle > (processXYZ and encodeBegin). It also says that is should be called > inside the new visitTree() > method. > > See [1] for the entire JavaDoc for the class. > > As we - currently - have our own Visitor implementation, I am focusing > here on the usage of the > pushComponentToEL/popComponentFromEL to be called (for now) only on > those lifecylce methods: > -encodeBegin() > -processDecodes() > -processRestoreState() > -processSaveState() > -processUpdates() > -processValidators() > > Regarding the Tree/Visitor implementation, I will follow up on this in > a separate thread, once I > managed to write down the diffs between our (Trinidad) impl and the > one from the spec. > > So, as for now I am proposing that we should integrate the > pushComponentToEL/popComponentFromEL > hooks for the mentioned methods. > > If this is really cause very bad performance results, we can > reevaluate the situation later on, again. > > Any thoughts ? > > > [1] > http://java.sun.com/javaee/javaserverfaces/2.0/docs/api/javax/faces/component/UIComponent.html > > -- > Matthias Wessendorf > > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ > sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf > twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf > -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
