Ganesh, Simon, Matthias.. I think I've got this patch mostly done (at
least enough to commit and not hose anyone), but I've not been involved
in much of the core development for JSF 2.0. Can you guys review the
patches I uploaded for
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MYFACES-2467 and
Sent from my iPod.
On 19.12.2009, at 03:30, Scott O'Bryan darkar...@gmail.com wrote:
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. ;)
yodaClassCastExceptions do
not an effective bridge make../yoda
Not to
+1 if it's about sharing the VDL base classes
sharing is good. So you are basically suggesting to reuse the
ViewDeclarationLanguage from
MyFaces (including ViewDeclarationLanguageBase and
ViewDeclarationLanguageStrategy) and make them part of the shared
project ?
-Matthias
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,
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. ;) yodaClassCastExceptions
do
not an effective bridge make../yoda
Not to surprised if myfaces does that too. Filing bugs is welcome.
Note that Apache MyFaces 2.0
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
Hey Guys,
I'm working on a preliminary version of the portlet-bridge for
JSF2.0.. Looking at the current R.I. implementations, it appears as if
I'm going to have to come up with my own implementations for the
ViewDeclairationLanguage's for the bridge. Although the R.I. is laid
out so that
Cool, you're working on this. Just a week ago I was stuck with
the current portal - JSF2.0 problem. Are you doing portal 1.0 -
JSF 2.0 or portal 2.0 - JSF 2.0?
I not yet clear about why the bridge needs to care about the
VDL. I thought it would suffice to brige the portal lifecyle
phases and
It's going to be JSF 2.0/Portal 2.0. I'm not sure if the JCP is going
to look at a Portal 1.0 Spec for JSF 2.0. The leanings on the current
EG's were that they were not. Portal 1.0 has some pretty major issues
in dealing with AJAX and whatnot so such a specification would be
problematic.
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 11:42 PM, Scott O'Bryan darkar...@gmail.com wrote:
It's going to be JSF 2.0/Portal 2.0. I'm not sure if the JCP is going to
look at a Portal 1.0 Spec for JSF 2.0. The leanings on the current EG's
were that they were not. Portal 1.0 has some pretty major issues in
10 matches
Mail list logo
