Yeah. When using facelets, our factory would just deligate to the default factory. Essentially the logic is:
if portal AND jsp, use the bridge VDL. What would have been nice is if the VDL used the ExternalContext or allowed us to provide a custom VHRequest/Response handler, but it doesn't. We had to do something similar with JSF 1.2 by implementing our own ViewHandler. Scott On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 8:17 AM, Simon Lessard <simon.lessar...@gmail.com>wrote: > Hi, > > Although I wouldn't mind if this is needed, I do find it weird for the > portle bridge to work with the VDL at all. VDL is supposed to have pretty > much a single purpose: convert a physical document to a JSF component tree. > That being said the JSP VDL most likely uses Servlet API too since, well, > it's about the only way to interact with JSP. This is sad, make you wish JSP > was never supported for JSF... > > > ~ Simon > > > On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 1:38 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <mat...@apache.org>wrote: > >> On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 11:42 PM, Scott O'Bryan <darkar...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > It's going to be JSF 2.0/Portal 2.0. I'm not sure if the JCP is going >> to >> > look at a Portal 1.0 Spec for JSF 2.0. The leanings on the current EG's >> > were that they were not. Portal 1.0 has some pretty major issues in >> dealing >> > with AJAX and whatnot so such a specification would be problematic. >> >> even due to the fact that I am mostly a portlet ignorant, this makes sense >> to only specify Portlet 2.0 w/ JSF 2 >> >> > >> > As for the VDL, simply put the current JSP VDL casts to some servlet >> objects >> > (at least in the R.I.) to do some things. ;) <yoda>ClassCastExceptions >> do >> > not an effective bridge make..</yoda> >> >> Not to surprised if myfaces does that too. Filing bugs is welcome. >> Note that Apache MyFaces 2.0 is already alpha and we are not too >> far away from a real release... >> >> > >> > The current bridge overrides the ViewHandler.renderView to overcome this >> > problem, but I thought it might be nice to synchronize some code up. As >> it >> > is right now, I'm merging the code from the ViewHandler.renderView in >> the >> > Portlet 2.0 bridge with the current R.I. There are some strange issues >> > which I'm overcoming, but evenutally it might be nice to allow MyFaces >> > development to continue to drive these view handlers. >> >> sharing is good. So you are basically suggesting to reuse the >> ViewDeclarationLanguage from >> MyFaces (including ViewDeclarationLanguageBase and >> ViewDeclarationLanguageStrategy) and make them part of the shared >> project ? >> >> -Matthias >> >> > >> > <shrug> >> > >> > Just a thought.. >> > >> > Scott >> > >> > Ganesh wrote: >> >> >> >> Cool, you're working on this. Just a week ago I was stuck with >> >> the current portal - JSF2.0 problem. Are you doing portal 1.0 - >> >> JSF 2.0 or portal 2.0 - JSF 2.0? >> >> >> >> I not yet clear about why the bridge needs to care about the >> >> VDL. I thought it would suffice to brige the portal lifecyle >> >> phases and forward the requests to the faces servlet? >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> Ganesh >> >> >> >> Scott O'Bryan schrieb: >> >>> >> >>> Hey Guys, >> >>> >> >>> I'm working on a preliminary version of the portlet-bridge for >> JSF2.0.. >> >>> Looking at the current R.I. implementations, it appears as if I'm >> going to >> >>> have to come up with my own implementations for the >> >>> ViewDeclairationLanguage's for the bridge. Although the R.I. is laid >> out so >> >>> that their implementations of the ViewDeclairationLanguage's is easily >> >>> extended, everything is impl. Since the Portlet Bridge is an Apache >> project >> >>> and should be container agnostic, I'm basically stuck with two >> choices: >> >>> >> >>> 1. Write the bridge's own implementation of the >> >>> ViewDeclairationLanguage for both JSF and facelets, or >> >>> 2. Just use/extend the ViewDeclairationLanguage for MyFaces from the >> >>> shared project >> >>> >> >>> I would rather do the latter so that the implementations of the >> >>> ViewDeclairationLanguage becomes consistent and, ideally, would allow >> us to >> >>> work with both the R.I. and MyFaces (albeit with the MyFaces code >> handling >> >>> the ViewDeclairationLanguage in the portal. >> >>> >> >>> Any preferences or comments of the feasibility of implementing this? >> I >> >>> haven't looked at this in depth but wanted to gauge people's reactions >> >>> before I went too far down the rabbit hole. >> >>> >> >>> Scott >> > >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Matthias Wessendorf >> >> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ >> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf >> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf >> > >
