Yes,

that's a problem. We can force solution for this for JSF 2.2. But: in
normal MVC application  the render response phase reads only values from
beans or component itself: that is a simple read process via getter - in
99.9% is there no exception. Do you have a use case which needs some
complex (potentionally buggy) processing in render response phase?


Thomas Andraschko píše v Čt 23. 02. 2012 v 16:40 +0100:
> Hi,
> 
> yep it comes from render reponse phase.
> 
> Hmm is see. But how can i catch this if there is really an runtime
> exception in the render response phase?
> "Can not find component" can be fixed during development but what about
> other exceptions?
> 
> Regards,
> Thomas
> 
> 2012/2/23 Martin Koci <[email protected]>
> 
> > Hi,
> >
> > your exception comes from render response phase, right? see [1].
> >
> > It is a know problem  but not solveable know - it requires specification
> > change I think.
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Kočičák
> >
> >
> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MYFACES-3191
> >
> >
> >
> > Thomas Andraschko píše v Čt 23. 02. 2012 v 14:51 +0100:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > i have a weird behavior on some partial requests/responses.
> > > If i get a exception a partial request, my ExceptionHandler will be
> > called
> > > and a redirect to my own error page will be done.
> > >
> > > However, PrimeFaces throws an FacesException if a component can not be
> > > found (I think this is the same behavior as with MyFaces or Mojarra).
> > > In this case, 2x partial-response tags will rendered.
> > >
> > > What MyFaces do:
> > >
> > > -start writing partial response
> > > -render components
> > > -end writing partial response
> > > -exception (Can not find component occured)
> > > -call ExceptionHandler
> > > -write next partial response with redirect tag
> > >
> > > So PrimeFaces does only check the first partial-response tag and so it
> > does
> > > not redirect to the page.
> > >
> > > I this behavior really correct in this way? Or should i create an issue?
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Thomas
> >
> >
> >


Reply via email to