I agree with Jakob, nobody will know about a parameter like this (are
they documented anywhere btw?). The effect (without setting it): for
application developers JSF seems to be broken.
Best regards
Michi
Am 22.09.2011 12:16, schrieb Jakob Korherr:
Hi,
Both suggestions for a name are reasonable, because they suggest
different things!
What Leo suggested (STRICT_JSF_2_COMPATIBILITY), is the flag we
(internally) have been discussing (and postponing) for a long time.
This config parameter would enable us to include non-spec behavior in
MyFaces core, which would make us fail the TCK, if we included it by
default. However, by enabling it via config parameter only
(STRICT_JSF_2_COMPATIBILITY=false), we would be able to fix obvious
spec issues already in MyFaces core 2.0 (e.g. MYFACES-2552) and still
passing the TCK. Thus we would not need to wait for the next spec
release (which may not even contain the fix....), to fix critical
issues.
What Mark and Bernd suggested is to include the fix for MYFACES-2552
and make a config parameter just for this behavior.
Actually, I think introducing yet another config parameter for (in
this case) very specific behavior is not the best idea, b/c no-one
outside of the MyFaces developers will use it. Introducing a more
generic config param, which would allow us to fix a lot more issues
which are just like this one, is IMO a far better idea.
Thus, my vote is +1 for STRICT_JSF_2_COMPATIBILITY and +0 for Bernd's
suggestion.
Regards,
Jakob
2011/9/22 Martin Marinschek<mmarinsc...@apache.org>:
+1 in general, +1 to Bernd's suggestion.
best regards,
Martin
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 9:59 AM, Gerhard Petracek
<gerhard.petra...@gmail.com> wrote:
@bernd: +1
regards,
gerhard
http://www.irian.at
Your JSF powerhouse -
JSF Consulting, Development and
Courses in English and German
Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
2011/9/22 Bernd Bohmann<bernd.bohm...@atanion.com>
I agree STRICT_JSF_2_COMPATIBILITY is too generic. I think the param
should contain EL, TYPE, MAP, RESOLVER, NULL. And it should enabled by
default.
Regards
Bernd
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 11:50 PM, Mark Struberg<strub...@yahoo.de> wrote:
Shouldnt the config contain the text EL_TYPE or so?
We have far too many strict JSF spec flags already ;)
LieGrue,
strub
----- Original Message -----
From: Jakob Korherr<jakob.korh...@gmail.com>
To: MyFaces Development<dev@myfaces.apache.org>
Cc: gudnabr...@gmail.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 10:20 PM
Subject: Re: [VOTE] fix MYFACES-2552 for 2.0.x and 2.1.x branches
+1 for including the fix in 2.0.x and 2.1.x + adding
org.apache.myfaces.STRICT_JSF_2_COMPATIBILITY
Regards,
Jakob
2011/9/21 Leonardo Uribe<lu4...@gmail.com>:
Hi
@Matt Benson: Could you attach at least the fragment with the
solution
for MYFACES-2552 ? so I can check it, create a patch for myfaces and
write a page on:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MYFACES/Composite+Components
with the explanation and the solution using a custom EL resolver.
That
would be very helpful.
regards,
Leonardo Uribe
2011/9/21 Leonardo Uribe<lu4...@gmail.com>:
Hi
It should be a param starting with org.apache.myfaces, like
org.apache.myfaces.STRICT_JSF_2_COMPATIBILITY
The important part is that by default it should be disabled, to
prevent receive over and over the same report.
In theory, it is possible to write a custom EL resolver that check
if
the base object implements
javax.faces.el.CompositeComponentExpressionHolder and if that so, do
the required stuff only on getType(). So, if somebody is writing a
composite component that relies on this behavior, it is possible to
write the fix in a portable way to both Mojarra and MyFaces (thanks
to
CompositeComponentExpressionHolder).
Note the change does not cause any side effects, because nobody
relies
on the "wrong" behavior, and what user wants is components
work as
expected.
regards,
Leonardo Uribe
2011/9/21 Mark Struberg<strub...@yahoo.de>:
Not sure about that.
Does the param start with javax.faces? In this case we should
rather use an own internal one.
Btw, if it's not in the spec even Mojarra would not be allowed
to use a proprietary parameter with "javax...."
LieGrue,
strub
----- Original Message -----
From: Matt Benson<gudnabr...@gmail.com>
To: MyFaces Development<dev@myfaces.apache.org>
Cc:
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 6:29 PM
Subject: Re: [VOTE] fix MYFACES-2552 for 2.0.x and 2.1.x
branches
+1
However, let's simplify the context parameter by giving it
a name
relating to JSF 2.2 compatibility. I submitted the final
implementation for Mojarra, so have every right to add the same
to
MyFaces.
Matt
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 11:19 AM, Gerhard Petracek
<gerhard.petra...@gmail.com> wrote:
+1 for it in combination with the context parameter
regards,
gerhard
http://www.irian.at
Your JSF powerhouse -
JSF Consulting, Development and
Courses in English and German
Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
2011/9/21 Rudy De Busscher<rdebussc...@gmail.com>
+1
And if we create a context parameter, it should behave
by default as in
the JSF 2.2 Spec. If users want strict spec
(2.0/2.1)behaviour they
have to
set the parameter value.
regards
Rudy
On 21 September 2011 17:08, Grant Smith
<work.gr...@gmail.com>
wrote:
+1 if it's configurable in a
<context-param>. How about
org.apache.myfaces.EL_RESOLVER_GETTYPE_RETURNS_NULL ?
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 5:35 AM, Michael Kurz
<michi.k...@gmx.at> wrote:
+1
Am 21.09.2011 um 14:20 schrieb Leonardo Uribe:
> +1
>
> 2011/9/21 Leonardo Uribe
<lu4...@gmail.com>:
>> Hi
>>
>> More than a year ago, it was found
that EL expressions
like
>> #{cc.attrs.test} does not resolve its
type correctly,
because the
>> composite component EL resolver is
not able to find
the right type.
>> Instead, MapELResolver always return
Object.class as
type, breaking
>> composite components that use
h:selectOneXXX into its
internals. See
>>
>>
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MYFACES-2552
>>
>> The problem with this issue is we
need to change the
way how
>>
org.apache.myfaces.el.unified.resolver.CompositeComponentELResolver
>> works. JSF 2.0 spec clearly says in
its section
5.6.2.2 that
>> getType()
>> for that EL resolver should return
null.
>>
>> The issue was reported to the EG and
a fix was
included in JSF 2.2.
>> spec, see:
>>
>>
http://java.net/jira/browse/JAVASERVERFACES_SPEC_PUBLIC-745
>>
>> but we still receive reports about
the same issue
(MYFACES-3311 and
>> others (last comment on MYFACES-1890)
).
>>
>> So, the current behavior even if is
described by the
spec is too
>> inconvenient. Note we already have
some places in our
implementation
>> that does not follow strictly the
spec, to keep things
working as
>> users expect. To follow the protocol
in these cases,
we need an
>> official community decision about
include it in 2.0.x
and 2.1.x
>> branches. Please vote:
>>
>> +1 if you want this fix included in
2.0.x and 2.1.x.
>> +0
>> -1 and the reason why if you see this
could cause any
problem.
>>
>> regards,
>>
>> Leonardo Uribe
>>
>> [1]
http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#ReleaseVotes
>>
--
Grant Smith - V.P. Information Technology
Marathon Computer Systems, LLC.
--
Rudy De Busscher
http://www.c4j.be
--
Jakob Korherr
blog: http://www.jakobk.com
twitter: http://twitter.com/jakobkorherr
work: http://www.irian.at
--
http://www.irian.at
Your JSF powerhouse -
JSF Consulting, Development and
Courses in English and German
Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
