Sounds good. It doesn't seem to be a must-have for 2.0
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4097967#4097967
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4097967
___
Matt, lets work through this on the JIRA issue for 2.0.1.
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4097848#4097848
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4097848
___
So I think I can say I understand what Seam does now. I don't necessarily
agree with it, though. I do understand that the installed attribute can't just
simply override the annotation on that class, otherwise something like
|
| wouldn't work, because "installed" would still be false.
Sorry for the delay,
let me try to get this right (its not trivial)
anonymous wrote : So, this is what I hear you saying:
|
|
| means "Go find the class called ComponentClass, and make sure it's going to
be installed. In addition, when instantiating, set myProperty to "me"."
Well, actu
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" wrote :
| i.e. install="false" says (in all place) don't install this implementation
of the component. It doesn't say (in any place) don't install this and any
lower precedence versions of this component.
|
So, this is what I hear you saying:
means "Go find the class
I created http://jira.jboss.com/jira/browse/JBSEAM-2036 as the old one was
really a bug report and this issue isn't a bug, it's a FR.
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4091273#4091273
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&
Ah, yes, I talked to Gavin at some point and I agree with him that the
semantics are currently correct.
i.e. install="false" says (in all place) don't install this implementation of
the component. It doesn't say (in any place) don't install this and any lower
precedence versions of this compon
This one addresses the issue, I think:
http://jira.jboss.com/jira/browse/JBSEAM-1190
I don't think I understand Gavin's last comment, though.
View the original post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4091163#4091163
Reply to the post :
http://www.jboss.com/index.html?m
anonymous wrote : Unfortunately, as I understand it, you can't prevent the
exception filter from being installed. If I'm wrong, please, someone correct
me.[/url]
|
| You are right, and Gavin and I have discussed this. I don't think we have
a JIRA issue for this?
|
|
View the origin
I wrote my own exception filter as well..
The most important thing for me is that there are no tests that seems to be
working but are not due to hidden exceptions..
It is my opinion that you would expect the exceptions to be passed on.
I would say that this is either a bug in the code or the docu
Ok, I felt like implementing this. It works well enough for me, anyway. Maybe
you can do something similar:
| import static org.jboss.seam.annotations.Install.MOCK;
|
| import java.io.IOException;
|
| import javax.servlet.FilterChain;
| import javax.servlet.ServletException;
| i
Yeah, I don't like how the exception filter prevents exceptions (though not
errors, like assertion failures) from being propagated outside the run()
method. Unfortunately, as I understand it, you can't prevent the exception
filter from being installed. If I'm wrong, please, someone correct me.
This isn't working as I expect it.
If an exception is thrown inside the FacesRequest(){}; and the exception isn't
propagated into the test class.
Tests that should fail due to exceptions are not failing..
The only way seems to be to create a try/catch-block inside each method of
FacesRequest.. b
I just did it like this...
| ...
| @Override
| protected void invokeApplication() throws Exception {
| Exception ex = new Exception();
|
| try {
|
in
14 matches
Mail list logo
