Yep; also, consecutive calling isn't really right because few of the ViewHandler methods return anything indicating "hey, I handled it, so everyone else hands off", and because the decoration pattern is in fact often required, to support working off the results of another ViewHandler' and tweaking them.
Where Craig says "it would be better than nothing" (referring to alphabetical order), I agree in so far as making it a convention, but I argued against making it part of the spec, since it's not something I wanted to be stuck with for the rest of eternity. -- Adam On 1/5/06, Werner Punz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Craig McClanahan wrote: > > > > Within a given faces-config.xml file you should be able to count on > > ordering (the last one you declare will be "the" view handler from the > > point of view of the Application object. However, there's no mandated > > ordering with respect to view handlers loaded from different > > faces-config.xml files (for example, those implicitly loaded from the > > META-INF directory of a component JAR). > > > > You may recall some earlier discussion on this list about what the JSF > > RI currently does -- essentially loading the jar files in alphabetical > > order. It's a convention, not a mandated requirement, and doesn't > > address all possible dependency relationships you might want, but it > > would be better than nothing. > > > > Ok thanks for the clarification, then my work spent on it so far is more > or less useless because the JSF api basically implcitely already does > what I had in mind :-) > >
