agreed with the *spec* point of you.

but again, don't we need to ask the question that craig pointed out?

Let's see how http://host/app/page.faces?foo=bar will

bring fun to the isPostback() thing :)

-M

On 10/19/06, Scott O'Bryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Again, I'm somewhat concerned that if this method is documented to
return true under the condition that the there is more then one
parameter, we need to follow that spec.  I wonder if it's too late to
eratta this to provide functionality rather then implementation in the doc.

Scott

Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
> oh! not updated... :)
>
> I think we can/should override isPostback() in the html....Mgr
> right?
>
> On 10/19/06, Bruno Aranda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Mmm, I see, but these two jsf_state params are not present in the 1.1
>> myfaces impl trunk, due to some changes Martin did to the
>> HtmlResponseStateManager class a few days ago...
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>> On 10/19/06, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > jsf_state is myfaces. the param was simply forgotten by eg.
>> > (or at least to specifiy the name of that state_save_param)
>> >
>> > javax.faces.ViewState was added to JSF 1.2.
>> >
>> > the default needs to check against the param_map_size > 0
>> > (see javadoc)
>> >
>> > you cannot check only agains the javax.faces.ViewState for backward
>> things.
>> > So my suggestion was doing the check in our htmlRespMgr against all
>> these three
>> > (the two jsf_state guys from myfaces AND javax....)
>> >
>> > -M
>> >
>> > On 10/19/06, Bruno Aranda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > > I see that the jsf_state || jsf_state_64 guys have disappeared from
>> > > the current 1.1 myfaces implementation and replaced by the
>> > > "javax.faces.ViewState", used by jsf 1.2, so I guess we can just
>> > > implement as pointer in the jsf 1.2 javadocs (the default impl just
>> > > checks for the "javax.faces.ViewState" param,
>> > >
>> > > Bruno
>> > >
>> > > On 10/19/06, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > > > 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
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > 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

Reply via email to