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
>
> >
> > 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. ;) ClassCastExceptions
> do
> > not an effective bridge make..
>
> Not to surprised if myfaces does that too. Filing bugs is welcome.
> Note that Apache MyFaces 2
The Apache MyFaces team is pleased to announce the release of
Apache MyFaces Orchestra Core 1.4
This release add support for portlets and new modules for compile orchestra
with jsf 1.2 and 2.0 implementations.
Also, orchestra core15 was merged in orchestra core module, because JDK 1.4
has reached
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MYFACES-2462?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Leonardo Uribe updated MYFACES-2462:
Resolution: Fixed
Fix Version/s: 2.0.0-alpha-2
Assignee: Leonardo Uribe
Hi,
I think .xml is too generic - there are many .xml files but only one
sort of them are facelets views. I recommend use of .view.xml
(login.view.xml for example) - that suffix was discussed on 314 mailing
list. With reserved .jsp (or .jspx) was view declaration clearly
identified, with simple .x
whoops,
+1 on *.xml
-M
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 5:23 PM, Andrew Robinson
wrote:
> Also, please mention if there are any objections to using *.xml for
> the facelets as opposed to *.xhtml which became the facelets standard.
> BTW, this has been brought up to the EG and has been mentioned in the
>
Also, please mention if there are any objections to using *.xml for
the facelets as opposed to *.xhtml which became the facelets standard.
BTW, this has been brought up to the EG and has been mentioned in the
facelets mailing list that *.xml should be the default as there is no
requirement that JSF
Trinidad 2 has not be kept up with Trinidad 1.2. This is known and
once 2.0 is stable I think there will be a push to migrate the changes
since the branching of 2 from 1.2.
-Andrew
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 12:26 PM, Teck Hua Lee wrote:
> Hi,
> I'm working off the Trinidad trunk. When I tested my
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,
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/EXTVAL-77?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12792467#action_12792467
]
Bart Kummel commented on EXTVAL-77:
---
There is a work around for this problem, as follows:
Trinidad does not render correct
---
Key: EXTVAL-77
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/EXTVAL-77
Project: MyFaces Extensions Validator
Issue Type: Bug
Components: Core, Generic Suppo
Project information | Issue Tracking page should point to ExtVal page in JIRA
-
Key: EXTVAL-76
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/EXTVAL-76
Project: MyFaces Extensions
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MYFACES-1820?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12792419#action_12792419
]
Simon Kitching commented on MYFACES-1820:
-
Yes, Leonardo's posting shows the late
Absolutely +1
It might also make a migration to JSF 2.0 easier.
/JK
2009/12/17 Max Starets :
> +1 from me too.
>
> Max
>
> Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
>
> Hello Andrew,
>
> I like your proposal.
>
> +1 on doing so!
>
> -Matthias
>
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 11:26 PM, Andrew Robinson
> wrote:
>
>
14 matches
Mail list logo
