Re: AW: WIKI article - How JSF State Management Works

[gramani]

Hi Mathias, I think your problem is similar to mine. Mathias Brökelmann solved it:

http://www.mail-archive.com/users@myfaces.apache.org/msg11289.html

Regards,
Geeta

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 11/30/2005 12:50:18 PM:

> Hi!
>
>
> Many thanks for your response. I just implemented the Serializable interface
> in my BackingBeans, but I get errors from JBoss now, saying that
> javax.faces.model.ListDataModel is not serializable. I need to use
> ListDataModel to wrap the java.util.List instances of data shown in
> dataTables.
>
> How did you solve that problem, if it had been a task for you?
>
> The problem has also been mentioned in the following post, but it shows no
> concrete solutions for me.
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/users@myfaces.apache.org/msg12092.html
>
>
>
> Regards,
> Matthias
>
> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Auftrag
> > von Mike Kienenberger
> > Gesendet: Dienstag, 29. November 2005 17:49
> > An: MyFaces Discussion
> > Betreff: Re: WIKI article - How JSF State Management Works
> >
> >
> > I think JSF doesn't perform saveState on backing beans in this
> > situation.   I'm not an expert on container session serialization, but
> > your container might attempt to serialize session-scoped backing beans
> > when the container shuts down or for clustering reasons.
> >
> > Again, I'm guessing somewhat on this as I've never really researched
> > it.   If you want to be safe, always implement serializable.   If it's
> > not used, it only costs you a little code (just an "implements"
> > statement in most cases).  And if it's used (whether by the container
> > or JSF), then you don't have to worry about it.
> >
> > On 11/29/05, Matthias Kahlau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes, I use server-side state saving and session-scoped BackingBeans. My
> > > BackingBeans don't have any superclasses, and don't implement
> > Serializable
> > > or StateHolder directly. Referencing to your explanation, the Container
> > > seems to manage the state saving. Is this really container
> > dependent, that
> > > said, is it possible, that the app won't run in a different
> > container. Do I
> > > have to implement Serializable in the BackingBeans, that the app is
> > > container-independent, and will that be enough? (that isn't
> > mentioned in the
> > > JSF book from Andy Bosch that I read, is that MyFaces specific?)
> > >
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Matthias
> > >
> > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > > > Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Auftrag
> > > > von Mike Kienenberger
> > > > Gesendet: Dienstag, 29. November 2005 17:24
> > > > An: MyFaces Discussion
> > > > Betreff: Re: WIKI article - How JSF State Management Works
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > It's hard to comment without a specific use case.
> > > >
> > > > You only have to implement Serializable or StateHolder if you're going
> > > > to save the bean.  Maybe you're not saving the bean.   If you're using
> > > > server-side state management and session-scoped beans, it'd depend on
> > > > your container whether they're "saved."
> > > >
> > > > If you're using client-side state management, they should always
> > > > be "saved."
> > > >
> > > > Also, check your inheritance hierarchy.  Perhaps some base superclass
> > > > is already implementing Serializable.
> > > >
> > > > On 11/29/05, Matthias Kahlau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > Hi!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I have a question regarding a MyFaces WIKI article about state
> > > > management.
> > > > > In the article is described, that BackingBeans will have to
> > > > implement the
> > > > > Serializable interface or StateHolder. I neither implement
> > > > Serializable, nor
> > > > > StateHolder, but my BackingBeans work. Isn't the article
> > > > up-to-date, or is
> > > > > there some misunderstanding?
> > > > >
> > > > > http://wiki.apache.org/myfaces/How_JSF_State_Management_Works
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > Matthias
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
>

>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:This email is intended solely for the person
> or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential
> and/or protected health information.  Any duplication,
> dissemination, action taken in reliance upon, or other use of this
> information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient
> is prohibited and may violate applicable laws.  If this email has
> been received in error, please notify the sender and delete the
> information from your system.  The views expressed in this email are
> those of the sender and may not necessarily represent the views of
> IntelliCare.