[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TOBAGO-317?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12480322
]
Udo Schnurpfeil commented on TOBAGO-317:
By the way, the action, link and onclick attributes must be used
Issue Type: Bug
Components: InputSuggestAjax
Affects Versions: 1.1.5-SNAPSHOT
Environment:
http://example.irian.at/example-sandbox-20070313/inputSuggestAjax.jsf
Reporter: Dénes Kelemen
TableSuggestAjax works correctly.
--
This message is automatically generated
inputDate popup positioning code is broken
--
Key: TOMAHAWK-931
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TOMAHAWK-931
Project: MyFaces Tomahawk
Issue Type: Bug
Affects Versions: 1.1.5-SNAPSHOT,
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TOMAHAWK-903?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Zdenek Sochor updated TOMAHAWK-903:
---
Status: Patch Available (was: Open)
Changing the rendered state of inputDate causes a
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TOMAHAWK-907?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12480372
]
Zdenek Sochor commented on TOMAHAWK-907:
Ajax components require little refactoring:
TableSuggestAjax
I think the reason is that myfaces 1.2 contains its own
org.apache.AnnotationProcessor class which is loaded by a different
classloader than the AnnotationProcessor in tomcat.
2007/3/13, Cagatay Civici [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi,
I'm trying to run the 1.2's test-webapp with tomcat 6.0.10 but keep
Yes,
Already tried with removing the duplicate class but that time faced with a
NPE in
org.apache.myfaces.config.annotation.TomcatAnnotationProcessor's
getAnnotationPrcessor
Cagatay
On 3/13/07, Mathias Brökelmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the reason is that myfaces 1.2 contains its
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TOMAHAWK-903?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Cagatay Civici updated TOMAHAWK-903:
Resolution: Fixed
Fix Version/s: 1.1.6-SNAPSHOT
1.1.5-SNAPSHOT
Hello Bernd,
Thanks for looking into this. I think geronimo might be able to work
with the changes you have made, but I don't think it would be a good
idea in the current form. I have two suggestions.
1. Please make use of the discovery mechanism optional. Geronimo
controls the
Hi,
this problem is not easy to solve - some1 commited patch to refactor
AnnotationProcessor interface to NOW wrong package.
This was due to efforts from MYFACES-1246, proposal of annotation
processing here in list (adding method), but this of course breaks
compatibility of the same named
IMO the simple interface which David suggest is quite sufficient to
solve the problem. I also think that discovery to look up the
implementation is not a good way in a app server with a complex
classloader hierarchy.
2007/3/13, David Jencks [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hello Bernd,
Thanks for looking
action in popup facet is not executed
-
Key: TOBAGO-319
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TOBAGO-319
Project: MyFaces Tobago
Issue Type: Bug
Components: Core
Affects Versions:
Hello,
how can the simple interface handle managed beans declared to be in none
scope without knowledge of the scope.
See Section 5.4.1 of the jsf spec:
Methods on managed beans declared to be in request, session, or
application scope, annotated with @PostConstruct, must be called by the
Their are some issued fixed in the trunk marked as fixed in 1.1.5-SNAPSHOT.
I am working towards releasing 1.1.5 in the next week or so. One of the
first questions is: Should the 1.1.5 branch be moved and recreated off
of the truck, or mark the trunk as 1.1.6-SNAPSHOT and updated any issue
On Mar 13, 2007, at 3:38 PM, Bernd Bohmann wrote:
Hello,
how can the simple interface handle managed beans declared to be in
none scope without knowledge of the scope.
See Section 5.4.1 of the jsf spec:
Methods on managed beans declared to be in request, session, or
application scope,
On Mar 13, 2007, at 3:42 PM, Bernd Bohmann wrote:
Hello David,
should every LifecycleProvider handle the difference between none
scoped beans and other scoped beans. This is not a clean interface.
As I mentioned in another post I think the spec intends that
postConstruct methods be
WebXmlParser should log debug instead of warn
-
Key: MYFACES-1560
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MYFACES-1560
Project: MyFaces Core
Issue Type: Bug
Components: JSR-252
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MYFACES-1560?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Paul McMahan updated MYFACES-1560:
--
Status: Patch Available (was: Open)
WebXmlParser should log debug instead of warn
Hello David,
comments inline
David Jencks wrote:
On Mar 13, 2007, at 3:38 PM, Bernd Bohmann wrote:
I read this to mean that the jsf implementation is prohibited from
calling posConstruct methdods after putting the bean in scope, but that
it is required to call postConstruct on all
On Mar 13, 2007, at 4:39 PM, Bernd Bohmann wrote:
Hello David,
comments inline
David Jencks wrote:
On Mar 13, 2007, at 3:38 PM, Bernd Bohmann wrote:
I read this to mean that the jsf implementation is prohibited from
calling posConstruct methdods after putting the bean in scope, but
that
AFAIK the LifecycleProvider will not handle the scope of the beans.
After calling newInstance(..) the returned value will be placed by
myfaces into the right scope (after injecting the declared managed
bean properties in faces config).
2007/3/13, Bernd Bohmann [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hello David,
David has found a few interesting things about the FactoryFinder
implementation. I think we can all agree that the memory leak can be fixed,
I have mixed feelings about the use of synchronization here. The code is
invoked from many places in the app and I am mostly concerned about
performance.
David Jencks wrote:
I get to set the instance I want to use, and you get to use discovery?
I also don't have to worry about whether the discovery framework is
actually thread safe.
Ok, but I think it's thread safe.
I will apply your changes.
Regards
Bernd
On Mar 13, 2007, at 6:46 PM, Dennis Byrne wrote:
David has found a few interesting things about the FactoryFinder
implementation. I think we can all agree that the memory leak can
be fixed, I have mixed feelings about the use of synchronization
here. The code is invoked from many places
24 matches
Mail list logo
