Re: [PORTAL] Custom lifecycle?
OK, definitely seems worthwhile at least as an initial approach. (I wish JSF made it easier to register custom lifecycles, but that's not our issue!) -- Adam On 10/25/06, Scott O'Bryan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You know you can do that all in one phase listener, right? It's really not much code at all to implement an algorithm like this. Yes, but even the code in 10.1.3.2 which doesn't take phases into account is somewhat scary. :) Adding logic to figure out what phase is next is a lot more scary. And as you said, in 1.1, there is no guarantee that the endPhaseListener gets called. Hrm, I'm confused - I thought you were talking about implementing a custom Lifecycle object. Do you mean a custom Lifecycle, or just a custom Filter? A Filter + a PhaseListener is fine. It's just implementing Lifecycle itself that is a bit scary. I'm trying to eliminate the filter all together. I can put code in the bridge which calls a particular listener before/after the execute and render methods are executed in the bridge, or I can make a custom lifecycle which requires NO changes to the bridge and executes the initialization code at the beginning and end of the lifecycle itself. The object itself wouldn't be too scary as it would do it's initialization and then deligate to the underlying lifecycle object. Code wise, it allows us to take advantage of the JSF ExternalContext abstractions much easier and eliminates the need for special handling of the Portal usecases. -- Adam Scott Adam Winer wrote: On 10/20/06, Scott O'Bryan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My question is this, is there any reason we can't provide our own custom lifecycle object that decorates the default one and allows us to run our initialization code on the execute and render? If so, the code to manage things like the TrinidadFacesContext becomes a LOT easier and we can rely on some of the stuff already build in to the Bridge Portlets. What's the advantage of a custom lifecycle over using a phase listener? --Adam
Re: [PORTAL] Custom lifecycle?
You know you can do that all in one phase listener, right? It's really not much code at all to implement an algorithm like this. Yes, but even the code in 10.1.3.2 which doesn't take phases into account is somewhat scary. :) Adding logic to figure out what phase is next is a lot more scary. And as you said, in 1.1, there is no guarantee that the endPhaseListener gets called. Hrm, I'm confused - I thought you were talking about implementing a custom Lifecycle object. Do you mean a custom Lifecycle, or just a custom Filter? A Filter + a PhaseListener is fine. It's just implementing Lifecycle itself that is a bit scary. I'm trying to eliminate the filter all together. I can put code in the bridge which calls a particular listener before/after the execute and render methods are executed in the bridge, or I can make a custom lifecycle which requires NO changes to the bridge and executes the initialization code at the beginning and end of the lifecycle itself. The object itself wouldn't be too scary as it would do it's initialization and then deligate to the underlying lifecycle object. Code wise, it allows us to take advantage of the JSF ExternalContext abstractions much easier and eliminates the need for special handling of the Portal usecases. -- Adam Scott Adam Winer wrote: On 10/20/06, Scott O'Bryan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My question is this, is there any reason we can't provide our own custom lifecycle object that decorates the default one and allows us to run our initialization code on the execute and render? If so, the code to manage things like the TrinidadFacesContext becomes a LOT easier and we can rely on some of the stuff already build in to the Bridge Portlets. What's the advantage of a custom lifecycle over using a phase listener? --Adam
Re: [PORTAL] Custom lifecycle?
On 10/20/06, Scott O'Bryan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My question is this, is there any reason we can't provide our own custom lifecycle object that decorates the default one and allows us to run our initialization code on the execute and render? If so, the code to manage things like the TrinidadFacesContext becomes a LOT easier and we can rely on some of the stuff already build in to the Bridge Portlets. What's the advantage of a custom lifecycle over using a phase listener? --Adam
Re: [PORTAL] Custom lifecycle?
Arash, Hey Arash, thanks for the links. The problem is that finding an AJAX solution will pretty much trump any other work we have. While certain portal implementations can be exploited to provide what is needed for AJAX, none of them are guaranteed with JSR-168. The real problem with AJAX and portletshas nothing to do with the life cycle. It more has to do with limitations of JSR-168. Let me elaborate. JSR-168 containers do not guarantee that a particular call to a resource is in the same namespace as it's parent application. This is typically the case in WSRP containers. Even assuming we could be connected to the same session as a particular portlet, the session data for a portlet instance is prefixed with a javax prefix and the portlet id. While this is SOMETIMES the same as the namespace, the JSR-168 does not guarantee this and there is no API for getting a hold of the portlet Id. Portlet 2.0 Spec is supposed to have some mechanisms for handling this, but anything we put in place in the mean time to handle AJAX will not work in all containers. Therefore, I'm of the opinion that we should get Trinidad working without AJAX first, making it the most compatible with JSR-168, and then look at possibly enhancing it to take a advantage of some specific portlet container implementations that might be exploited for AJAX. Until the portlet 2.0 specification is released, JSR-168 will not be able to support AJAX in all cases natively, or at the very least not in a fashion that is as secure as the web container. Scott Arash Rajaeeyan wrote: Hello, First let me tell, that since lifecycle of Portlets is different with Servlets, so the same implementation of the JSF life cycle for servlet is not necessarily good for portlets too. I didn't find an exact case in Trinidad sources, but there are should be some facilities similar to tomahawk immediate attributes ( http://wiki.apache.org/myfaces/How_The_Immediate_Attribute_Works) Which some time short cut the lifecycle. So I think this should be taken into account If we can find a method for handling AJAX requests at same time is also good. The problem is every AJAX call to a portlet will generate a processAction and as a result will refresh all portlets in a page unnecessarily. For more information about this you can see the following articles: http://developers.sun.com/prodtech/portalserver/reference/techart/asynch_rendering.html http://blogs.sun.com/gregz/entry/ajaxportlet_updates#comments http://developers.sun.com/prodtech/portalserver/reference/techart/ajax-portlets.html Arash Rajaeeyan On 10/23/06, Scott O'Bryan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We discussed this in 10.1.3 about how there is no guarantee that the cleanup will happen if the life cycle is short-circuited.plus we would need a bunch of touch-points. We would need listeners on the following: 1. Initialize before Restore Component Tree 2. Cleanup after Process Events only when Response Complete or Render Response is the next phase 3. Cleanup after Process Events only when Response Complete or Render Response is the next phase. 4. Cleanup after Process Events only when Response Complete or Render Response is the next phase 5. Cleanup after Process Events 2 6. Initialize before Reader Response 7. Cleanup after Reader Response It would be far easier to run the execution code at the beginning and end of the LifeCycle's execute method and at the beginning and end of the lifecycle's render method just to make sure we hit all the touch points. Also, some of the cleanup above (ie. cleaning up before Render Response and then reinitializing could be optimized, but do remember that in the portal, each portlet can recieve multiple render-requests for each action request. So the TrinidadFacesContext object should be the same between those calls to render-request. I've just added some code in 10.1.3 that was causing issues with this and process scope. Of course when dealing with servlets, this all becomes trivial. Now that being said, if you still think LifeCycle listeners are the way to go, I would be happy to explore that option. I know this is the type of stuff that LifeCycle listeners were designed for, but I also know there was a reason that Trinidad used filters instead of lifecycle listeners before. Eliminating the need for filters altogether would be a good thing. Scott Adam Winer wrote: On 10/20/06, Scott O'Bryan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My question is this, is there any reason we can't provide our own custom lifecycle object that decorates the default one and allows us to run our initialization code on the execute and render? If so, the code to manage things like the TrinidadFacesContext becomes a LOT easier and we can rely on some of the stuff already build in to the Bridge Portlets. What's the advantage of a custom lifecycle over using a phase listener? --Adam
Re: [PORTAL] Custom lifecycle?
Matthias, I think that's true as well. There is no guaranteed order for phase listeners and whatnot. Ideally our initialization needs to happen before other phase listeners run. Scott Matthias Wessendorf wrote: Just a question regarding this: -Isn't it the case that you can't specifiy a *chaining* for PhaseListeners? Only like _a.jar b.jar z_myfaces.jar So when you register 5 for Phase #1 you can have issues with that, right ? At least when one of the PhaseListeners in front your yours does something wrong/ugly? My understanding to a custom lifecycle is that it doesn't bother with the *regular* Lifecycle's PhaseListeners. Thanks, Matthias On 10/22/06, Adam Winer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 10/20/06, Scott O'Bryan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My question is this, is there any reason we can't provide our own custom lifecycle object that decorates the default one and allows us to run our initialization code on the execute and render? If so, the code to manage things like the TrinidadFacesContext becomes a LOT easier and we can rely on some of the stuff already build in to the Bridge Portlets. What's the advantage of a custom lifecycle over using a phase listener? --Adam
Re: [PORTAL] Custom lifecycle?
Hi scott, you are right JSR 286 has non of these problems because they have added Resource Serving and Portlet filter concepts: PLT.13 page 67 Resource serving – provides ability for a portlet to serve a resource.. PLT 19 page 199 Portlet filter – allowing on the fly transformations of information in both the request to and the response from a portlet I think if want to add a filter for image and other resources, this should also do the job of ajax calls, and if use another method, we should still find a way for ajax calls and we will probably do same work twice On 10/24/06, Scott O'Bryan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Arash, Hey Arash, thanks for the links. The problem is that finding an AJAX solution will pretty much trump any other work we have. While certain portal implementations can be exploited to provide what is needed for AJAX, none of them are guaranteed with JSR-168. The real problem with AJAX and portletshas nothing to do with the life cycle. It more has to do with limitations of JSR-168. Let me elaborate. JSR-168 containers do not guarantee that a particular call to a resource is in the same namespace as it's parent application. This is typically the case in WSRP containers. Even assuming we could be connected to the same session as a particular portlet, the session data for a portlet instance is prefixed with a javax prefix and the portlet id. While this is SOMETIMES the same as the namespace, the JSR-168 does not guarantee this and there is no API for getting a hold of the portlet Id. Portlet 2.0 Spec is supposed to have some mechanisms for handling this, but anything we put in place in the mean time to handle AJAX will not work in all containers. Therefore, I'm of the opinion that we should get Trinidad working without AJAX first, making it the most compatible with JSR-168, and then look at possibly enhancing it to take a advantage of some specific portlet container implementations that might be exploited for AJAX. Until the portlet 2.0 specification is released, JSR-168 will not be able to support AJAX in all cases natively, or at the very least not in a fashion that is as secure as the web container. Scott Arash Rajaeeyan wrote: Hello, First let me tell, that since lifecycle of Portlets is different with Servlets, so the same implementation of the JSF life cycle for servlet is not necessarily good for portlets too. I didn't find an exact case in Trinidad sources, but there are should be some facilities similar to tomahawk immediate attributes ( http://wiki.apache.org/myfaces/How_The_Immediate_Attribute_Works) Which some time short cut the lifecycle. So I think this should be taken into account If we can find a method for handling AJAX requests at same time is also good. The problem is every AJAX call to a portlet will generate a processAction and as a result will refresh all portlets in a page unnecessarily. For more information about this you can see the following articles: http://developers.sun.com/prodtech/portalserver/reference/techart/asynch_rendering.html http://blogs.sun.com/gregz/entry/ajaxportlet_updates#comments http://developers.sun.com/prodtech/portalserver/reference/techart/ajax-portlets.html Arash Rajaeeyan On 10/23/06, Scott O'Bryan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We discussed this in 10.1.3 about how there is no guarantee that the cleanup will happen if the life cycle is short-circuited.plus we would need a bunch of touch-points. We would need listeners on the following: 1. Initialize before Restore Component Tree 2. Cleanup after Process Events only when Response Complete or Render Response is the next phase 3. Cleanup after Process Events only when Response Complete or Render Response is the next phase. 4. Cleanup after Process Events only when Response Complete or Render Response is the next phase 5. Cleanup after Process Events 2 6. Initialize before Reader Response 7. Cleanup after Reader Response It would be far easier to run the execution code at the beginning and end of the LifeCycle's execute method and at the beginning and end of the lifecycle's render method just to make sure we hit all the touch points. Also, some of the cleanup above (ie. cleaning up before Render Response and then reinitializing could be optimized, but do remember that in the portal, each portlet can recieve multiple render-requests for each action request. So the TrinidadFacesContext object should be the same between those calls to render-request. I've just added some code in 10.1.3 that was causing issues with this and process scope. Of course when dealing with servlets, this all becomes trivial. Now that being said, if you still think LifeCycle listeners are the way to go, I would be happy to explore that option. I know this is the type of stuff that LifeCycle listeners were designed for, but I also know there was a reason that Trinidad used filters instead of lifecycle listeners before. Eliminating the need
Re: [PORTAL] Custom lifecycle?
if we forget about ajax what about immediate, is there any facility in trinidad which shortcuts lifecycle? On 10/24/06, Scott O'Bryan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Arash, Hey Arash, thanks for the links. The problem is that finding an AJAX solution will pretty much trump any other work we have. While certain portal implementations can be exploited to provide what is needed for AJAX, none of them are guaranteed with JSR-168. The real problem with AJAX and portletshas nothing to do with the life cycle. It more has to do with limitations of JSR-168. Let me elaborate. JSR-168 containers do not guarantee that a particular call to a resource is in the same namespace as it's parent application. This is typically the case in WSRP containers. Even assuming we could be connected to the same session as a particular portlet, the session data for a portlet instance is prefixed with a javax prefix and the portlet id. While this is SOMETIMES the same as the namespace, the JSR-168 does not guarantee this and there is no API for getting a hold of the portlet Id. Portlet 2.0 Spec is supposed to have some mechanisms for handling this, but anything we put in place in the mean time to handle AJAX will not work in all containers. Therefore, I'm of the opinion that we should get Trinidad working without AJAX first, making it the most compatible with JSR-168, and then look at possibly enhancing it to take a advantage of some specific portlet container implementations that might be exploited for AJAX. Until the portlet 2.0 specification is released, JSR-168 will not be able to support AJAX in all cases natively, or at the very least not in a fashion that is as secure as the web container. Scott Arash Rajaeeyan wrote: Hello, First let me tell, that since lifecycle of Portlets is different with Servlets, so the same implementation of the JSF life cycle for servlet is not necessarily good for portlets too. I didn't find an exact case in Trinidad sources, but there are should be some facilities similar to tomahawk immediate attributes ( http://wiki.apache.org/myfaces/How_The_Immediate_Attribute_Works) Which some time short cut the lifecycle. So I think this should be taken into account If we can find a method for handling AJAX requests at same time is also good. The problem is every AJAX call to a portlet will generate a processAction and as a result will refresh all portlets in a page unnecessarily. For more information about this you can see the following articles: http://developers.sun.com/prodtech/portalserver/reference/techart/asynch_rendering.html http://blogs.sun.com/gregz/entry/ajaxportlet_updates#comments http://developers.sun.com/prodtech/portalserver/reference/techart/ajax-portlets.html Arash Rajaeeyan On 10/23/06, Scott O'Bryan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We discussed this in 10.1.3 about how there is no guarantee that the cleanup will happen if the life cycle is short-circuited.plus we would need a bunch of touch-points. We would need listeners on the following: 1. Initialize before Restore Component Tree 2. Cleanup after Process Events only when Response Complete or Render Response is the next phase 3. Cleanup after Process Events only when Response Complete or Render Response is the next phase. 4. Cleanup after Process Events only when Response Complete or Render Response is the next phase 5. Cleanup after Process Events 2 6. Initialize before Reader Response 7. Cleanup after Reader Response It would be far easier to run the execution code at the beginning and end of the LifeCycle's execute method and at the beginning and end of the lifecycle's render method just to make sure we hit all the touch points. Also, some of the cleanup above (ie. cleaning up before Render Response and then reinitializing could be optimized, but do remember that in the portal, each portlet can recieve multiple render-requests for each action request. So the TrinidadFacesContext object should be the same between those calls to render-request. I've just added some code in 10.1.3 that was causing issues with this and process scope. Of course when dealing with servlets, this all becomes trivial. Now that being said, if you still think LifeCycle listeners are the way to go, I would be happy to explore that option. I know this is the type of stuff that LifeCycle listeners were designed for, but I also know there was a reason that Trinidad used filters instead of lifecycle listeners before. Eliminating the need for filters altogether would be a good thing. Scott Adam Winer wrote: On 10/20/06, Scott O'Bryan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My question is this, is there any reason we can't provide our own custom lifecycle object that decorates the default one and allows us to run our initialization code on the execute and render? If so, the code to manage things like the TrinidadFacesContext becomes a LOT easier and we can rely on some of the stuff already
