Shinsuke SUGAYA wrote: > David Sean Taylor wrote: > >>Shinsuke SUGAYA wrote: >> >> >>>Hi Ate, >>> >>>Thank you for the proper advice. >>>Since each solution(proposing it to MyFaces and proposing to Portal >>>Briges) has the benefit, actually, I hovered between them. For me, >>>the easy way was to propose it to Portal Bridges. So, I did that.. >>>But, as you mentioned, since MyFaces team may be interested in it, >>>I should have proposed it to MyFaces first. Anyway, I'll contact to >>>MyFaces team. >>> >>>Some components, such as inputHtml, use AddResource class to handle >>>some tags in <head>. Therefore, if you want to use it, you have to >>>use ExtensionsFilter in portal's web.xml or to manage the tags in >>><head>. IMO, I do not think ExtensionsFilter is proper in Portlet. >>>So, in my suggestion, MyFacesGenericPortlet handle the tag to >>>support the components. >> >> >>Is this a replacement for the current JSF code in the JSF Bridge? > > > No. I do not think standard JSF put tags into <head>. > So, my suggestion is not needed. > > >>Or is it meant to be another, co-existing solution? > > > I think I can say yes. > My suggestion is for MyFaces. > MyFaces has some extended components(called Tomahawk). > These components do not work on J2(JS2-316). So, if > using this MyFaces bridge, they works :) > > I summarized as below: > > If user want to use only JSF standard components.. > -> use JSF bridge > If user want to use JSF standard components and Tomahawk.. > -> use my suggestion > Sorry, I let this one slip. I think you should check it in and we can test it out.
-- David Sean Taylor Bluesunrise Software [EMAIL PROTECTED] [office] +01 707 773-4646 [mobile] +01 707 529 9194 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
