Werner, ADF Faces is more than just a component set - there's also framework features, particularly processScope and the Dialog Framework. Those are some of the big things that we use a ViewHandler for. There is some component-specific ViewHandler code too, specifically the notion of some viewIds that are mapped to internal code - this way, we can have components that show specific popups without forcing the user to install JSPs.
-- Adam On 12/28/05, Werner Punz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Adam Winer wrote: > > My assumption is that the initial arrival will be akin to Tobago, > > part of MyFaces, yes, but a third set alongside Tomahawk > > and Tobago. > > > > This of course raises major questions going forward of how > > to integrate all of these into one coherent set - and, of course, > > the question of whether to integrate at all (default answer - yes). > > These aren't new questions for MyFaces - it already exists within > > the context of Tomahawk + Tobago, but it does make it an > > even bigger and tougher issue. > > > > BTW, yes, we've got our own ViewHandler (currently registered > > implicitly via META-INF/faces-config.xml). The big nastiness > > with all these ViewHandlers is that ordering effects can be distinctly > > nasty to work with. The best thing to do, IMO, will be writing a single > > powerful ViewHandler with lots of separte, well-defined pluggability > > points. We do some of this sort of stuff already with a Service > > API that lets you define optional interfaces on a RenderKit that'll > > get called as needed by the ViewHandler - no private IP being > > revealed here, just google "ExtendedRenderKitService" for > > a taste of the idea :) > > > Well the best issue probably would be to get rid of the view handler > depencencies at component level at all. One of the biggest problems is > the pattern used by the view handlers (decorators), it is rather hard to > combine those. > Add to that the problem, that facelets and tapestry also use theirs. > > One good thing about the Tomahawk components is, they do not use > any custom view handler at all, so the integration of Tomahawk into > other jsf implementations and libraries is rather straigforward. > > I am not sure if the view handlers of tobago and adf are needed that way > anymore, maybe something like facelets would be a better approach > (everyone seems to settle on that one as it looks currently) > > To my understanding Tobago used its own view handler to get rid of jsp > tags and to use its own layouting mechanism, maybe there is a huge > redundancy there. > >
