I totally agree with Adam here. This is workable, and doable, and we'll do it. As with the Tobago-Viewhandler- you've heard that they use it only very sparingly.
regards, Martin On 12/30/05, Adam Winer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 12/30/05, Werner Punz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The main problem I see with all this is more JSF related and less > > myfaces related. We have this critical conflict point view handlers > > which cannot be combined in a decent way due to limitations > > of the pattern and the handling of only being able to define one > > per web application. > > Werner, > > Technically, this is not true - ViewHandlers can and should be > defined as decorators, and I think all of the ones you list do so. > > So, in theory, these should all be possible to combine in a single > application. > > Whether this actually works in practice is a different problem! > > For example, I know that the Facelets and ADF ViewHandlers > work fine together - as long as the ADF one wraps around the > Facelets one, not the other way! And ordering is (mostly) > undefined in JSF, which is the real root of many of the problems. > > Once ADF, MyFaces, and Tobago are all under a single umbrella, > we can work at reducing our set of ViewHandlers to just one with > well-defined plugin points, which'd help go a long way towards > getting our component sets working together. (Integrating the > ResponseWriters would be a big second step.) > > -- Adam > -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
