As the extensions filter is ... a filter, you store some string processings that will be performed on the generated html.
As this processing is performed after the all JSF response has been completed, I don't think you have such problems.
It works exactly the same way SiteMesh works.
Sylvain.
On Fri, 2005-04-01 at 13:25 -0600, Heath Borders wrote:
We would have to parse the response then, and add it properly. The issue is that you cannot guarantee that the <html /> tag will be closed after the <f:view /> tag is. When the <f:view /> is closed, that's when the endDocument() method is called. So, if a user has the following JSP: <f:view> <f:verbatim> <html> </f:verbatim> <%-- more JSF content --%> <f:verbatim> </html> </f:verbatim> </f:view> This could result in the following html: <html> <!-- rendered JSF content --> </html> <form name="dummyForm" action=""> </form> <script language="_javascript_"> // autoscroll _javascript_ </script> On Apr 1, 2005 12:36 PM, Korhonen, Kalle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Heath Borders [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Subject: Re: ResponseWriter.endDocument() vs. ADF Faces (and, hello) > > Why can't we wrap every commandLink/commandButton in its own > > dummy form if it doesn't have a parent form? This would mean > > See the JIRA on this http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MYFACES-152?page=comments#action_61924. I suggested to use ExtensionsFilter for this à la SiteMesh, what do you think? > > Kalle >
