[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MYFACES-2629?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12850832#action_12850832
 ] 

Jakob Korherr commented on MYFACES-2629:
----------------------------------------

Hi Lewis,

We cast to the AbstractFaceletContext first, because "our" 
AbstractFaceletContext defines more methods than FaceletContext from the api, 
which we need internally. However if this is a big problem here, which it seems 
to me that it is, I'll take a look at those methods and maybe find another 
place to put them in order to not have to cast to AbstractFaceletContext.

> Accept abstract FaceletContext, do not force AbstractFaceletContext
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: MYFACES-2629
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MYFACES-2629
>             Project: MyFaces Core
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: General, JSR-314
>    Affects Versions: 2.0.0-beta-3
>         Environment: Tomcat 6.0+, MyFaces 2.0.0-beta3 API/Impl.
>            Reporter: Lewis Gass
>
> I am the main coder on the Gracelets project 
> (http://gracelets.sourceforge.net/) and have recently began integration of 
> Groovy with JSF 2.0. In order for Gracelets to harness the already existing 
> Facelets libraries it needs access to the TagLibrary class and the actual 
> libraries loaded by the JSF 2.0 implementation. Since that library is not 
> part of the JSF 2.0 public API, I have to write an extension for each 
> different JSF 2.0 implementation in order to load them. I have been able to 
> successfully integrate with the SUN RI with minimal code. However, in MyFaces 
> Core implementation this code appears on line 135 of the 
> org.apache.myfaces.view.facelets.tag.jsf.ComponentTagHandlerDelegate:
> AbstractFaceletContext actx = (AbstractFaceletContext) ctx;
> Gracelets has its own FaceletContext (which is part of the public API) in 
> order to mimimize integration between different JSF 2.0 implementations. 
> Since in MyFaces this is forced to be a particular sub class here, it breaks 
> portability. Is there anyway this can be avoided?

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.

Reply via email to