Hi Leo, Upgraded to 2.2.1 today (or was it yesterday?) and had problems. Removed org.apache.myfaces.STRICT_JSF_2_FACELETS_COMPATIBILITY and many problems went away. Much later discovered more problems but it's just me and my silly app until I have proof :-)
I totally agree that c:forEach was more broken before! Thanks a lot for fixing it. I would be very interested in some more input / clarifications about my other problem actually. Are you saying that forms may not use enctype="multipart/form-data"? How are you supposed to fileUpload? Perhaps you must have a fileUpload component present if the form has enctype="multipart/form-data"? Sounds like a weird limitation. My functional requirement is of course a form with a fileupload component, it is not working though and it's because the form will not post. I ended up removing all markup until I had a single button in a form and it still did not work, that's when I created a jira. But at one point that form did have a fileupload too with no difference in the result. On 10 March 2014 21:01, Leonardo Uribe <lu4...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2014-03-10 14:56 GMT-05:00 Karl Kildén <karl.kil...@gmail.com>: > > Ah the new release, yes I tried it asap it did not fix my issue. > > > > Which one? #1 or #2 ? > > > Regarding the duplicated id issue that I think could be related to > > c:forEach, No idea what the problem is but it works fine with mojarra and > > just as fine with myfaces 2.1.x. The construct in that app is special so > it > > is up to me to reproduce it and I don't have time until next week. And > yes, > > c:forEach works with ajax but it's important that the items are unchanged > > during postback. > > > > Ok. If we have an example we will be able to fix it more quickly. For now > I'll take a look at MYFACES-3867 > > > I am considering mojarra because enctype="multipart/form-data" is not > > working for me with any myfaces 2 version. It's common knowledge that > > Mojarra is skimping on some validation here and there. > > > > > > On 10 March 2014 20:13, Howard W. Smith, Jr. <smithh032...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >> response inline, > >> > >> On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Karl Kildén <karl.kil...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > Hi Howard, > >> > > >> > If someone proposed a fix for me I must have missed it, so no my > issues > >> are > >> > still not resolved unfortunately. I don't think it's possible to > write it > >> > in another fashion. > >> > > >> > >> Leonardo's response, asking you to try MyFaces 2.2.1, which was released > >> within the last 12 to 24 hours. :) > >> > >> > >> > > >> > Problem #1: enctype="multipart/form-data" not working. Not sure if > anyone > >> > tried the demo app I linked in the jira but for now I can't > investigate > >> it > >> > any further on my own. > >> > > >> > >> i don't think Leonardo's response was targeting this issue. > >> maybe/hopefully, Leonardo will respond at his earliest convenience. > >> earlier, did you say that this issue is resolved via Mojarra 2.2.x (and > >> some other container... glassfish, jboss, ...) ??? > >> > >> > >> > > >> > Problem #2 I also have a problem with duplicated id's but it would > take > >> > some time to reproduce it in a demo app so I'm hesitant to bring it > up. > >> > Basically a lot of ajax, dynamic includes, c:forEach, ui:repeat, some > >> > bindings :-) > >> > > >> > >> did you try MyFaces 2.2.1 release to see if the duplicated IDs issue is > >> fixed in your app/project? > >> > >> is it best to assume that c:forEach is supposed to work with/via AJAX > PPR? > >> just because Mojarra 'works', should we assume that Mojarra's > >> implementation is correct? > >> > >> MyFaces and TomEE committers know that there MyFaces may be a bit more > >> 'strict' than Mojarra (I can agree with that as well, as per my > experience > >> when i migrated from Mojarra 2.1.x to MyFaces 2.1.x), and I think > MyFaces > >> (and TomEE) committers question the fact that Mojarra is really meeting > >> requirements of the spec, or there is a different set of TCKs that > Mojarra > >> is running against. I hope 'they' will confirm, clarify, or correct what > >> I'm stating here. :) > >> >
