Any news about the fix? -----Original Message----- From: Gary VanMatre [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 23 maggio 2007 22.44 To: user@shale.apache.org Subject: Re: SHALE-409 fix
>From: "Craig McClanahan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > On 5/23/07, Gary VanMatre wrote: > > >From: "Craig McClanahan" > > > > > > On 5/23/07, Gary VanMatre wrote: > > > > > > > > >From: Torsten Krah [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > >The question would be - as the second run is really useless - how to > > > > >identify annotated tiger beans. > > > > >If they can be identified (dont know if this is possible and how to do > > > > >it yet), than the code in run two can be fixed to do what the comment > > > > >does want to do, remove them, instead of removing the rest completely. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm thinking that we could just remove that bit of logic because the > > > > web container should fire the ServletRequestListener [1] regardless? > > > > > > > > > > It will indeed get called later, but outside the JSF lifecycle ... > > > which means you would not be able to get to the FacesContext in a > > > destroy() method. That's why this logic was inserted in the first > > > place. > > > > > > > Ah, I figured there was good reason. What if we delegated to the tiger > > LifecycleListener from the JSF phase listener - same pattern? > > > > > > // Delegate to the Tiger Extensions instance if it exists > > LifecycleListener tiger = tiger(); > > if (tiger != null) { > > tiger.contextDestroyed(event); > > } > > > > > > private LifecycleListener tiger() ... > > > > At first blush this looks good, but I'm heads down getting ready for a > trip to India next week, so I won't be able to actually play with this > until the first week of June. > Cool. I'll try to take a look this week. I don't have a Solaris box sitting around to test but I could make the change to the 1.1.0-SNAPSHOT and we could decide if we want to push it to the other branch later on. > Craig > Gary > > > > > > > Craig > > > > > > > Gary > > > > > > However, there might be a funky case that resulted in this logic in the > > > > PhaseListener - not sure. > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/shale/framework/trunk/shale-view/src/main/j ava/org/ > > > apache/shale/view/faces/LifecycleListener.java?view=markup > > > > > > > > > > > > >Torsten > > > > > > > > Gary > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > > > From: Torsten Krah > > > > To: user@shale.apache.org > > > > Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 19:11:48 +0000 > > > > Subject: Re: SHALE-409 fix > > > > The question would be - as the second run is really useless - how to > > > > identify annotated tiger beans. > > > > If they can be identified (dont know if this is possible and how to do > > > > it yet), than the code in run two can be fixed to do what the comment > > > > does want to do, remove them, instead of removing the rest completely. > > > > > > > > Torsten > > > > > > > > > > > > Am Dienstag, den 22.05.2007, 15:41 +0200 schrieb > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > > > > > Please fix the bug SHALE-409. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > > > > > Mario Buonopane > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain > > > > privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have > > > > received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the > > > > original. Any other use of the email by you is prohibited. > > > > > > > > > > > > This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original. Any other use of the email by you is prohibited.