On 5/11/07, Alexander Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I can't find much info about the suggestion you make in google... Any
more details are greatly appreciated... Thanks!

what I meant is that command buttons and command links have an
attribute called action which is set to a method binding expression.
This method will be invoked in the jsf process action phase.  Inside
this method it is ok to change the portlet mode.  You do not need to
introduce phase listeners.



On May 10, 2007, at 6:07 PM, Ryan Wynn wrote:

> On 5/10/07, Alexander Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hi All... I'm finding using portlet modes in jsf at the very least
>> cumbersome... Is this really how it is? Should I just forget about
>> portlet modes and use jsf navigation rules to compensate?
>>
>> I'm doing stuff like this: If you hit the edit icon you are taken to
>> the edit jsp correctly (so far so good) via override to doEdit and
>> calling nonFacesRequest
>>
>> However, when I want to switch back to view mode, I'm having to
>> override processAction where i can switch the mode, however, i can't
>> see any of the parameters and attributes changed in portlet request
>> by my bean action listeners... So... i either use a session attribute
>> or do the switch blindly...
>
> You should not have to override processAction in MyFacesGenericPortlet
> to accomplish this.  You can change the portlet mode during the
> process action phase of the jsf lifecycle because this phase happens
> within the portlet action phase.  You will, however, have to cast the
> to portlet specific objects from the external context because jsf does
> not provide a portlet api.
>
>
>>
>> Worse, switching modes doesn't change the VIEW_ID (expected) but i
>> seem to only be able to change that back in doView now (since i
>> changed mode back to view) by checking if i was looking at my "edit"
>> view page... Still is too late to validate if i really wanted to go
>> there...
>>
>> Is this really how it is done? Anyone else using portlet modes?
>>
>> Thanks in advance!
>>
>>
>


Reply via email to