no, I mean, why not just abstract isPost() method and letting the impls deal with that?
best would be to check against view_param. ok, that disables jsf 1.1 from work so looking for param_map size > 0 is ... ok. so each impl can check against view_param (that's jsf 1.2) and! what they did for jsf 1.1 the jsf_state || jsf_state_64 in case of myfaces and com,sun.xxxx in case of RI I don't see why checking (inside the IMPL of myfaces) against jsf_state || jsf_state_64 || jsf_view_param params will break jsf 1.2 Since we don't touch the API RespStMgr. guy. -M On 10/19/06, Scott O'Bryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't know why it's like this either, but unfortunately the snipit defines a very clear behavior. Breaking this contract will break thew 1.2 spec. Scott Matthias Wessendorf wrote: > to fast... :) > > my question was, why not as abstract method and let the details to the > impl... > > and we need to *overhaul* this in htmlResp.... > > -M > > On 10/19/06, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> does anyone know, why the spec says for RespStateMgr.isPostback() >> >> >> <snip> >> For backwards compatability with implementations of >> ResponseStateManager prior to JSF 1.2, a default implementation is >> provided that consults the ExternalContext's requestParameterMap and >> return true if its size is greater than 0. >> </snip> >> >> http://foo:port/myapp/random.faces?hack=me >> >> >> I think we need (for myfaces) to override the method in the >> htmlRespStMgr.. >> to check against jsf_state || jsf_state_64 || jsf_view_param >> >> -M >> >> -- >> Matthias Wessendorf >> http://tinyurl.com/fmywh >> >> further stuff: >> blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf >> mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com >> > >
-- Matthias Wessendorf http://tinyurl.com/fmywh further stuff: blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
