[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TOMAHAWK-509?page=comments#action_12429243 ] Kevin Galligan commented on TOMAHAWK-509: -----------------------------------------
I'm in the trenches right now with my project or I'd take a look at this. I was implementing a new page when I remembered from the documentation that saveState was to support StateHolder, and tried it out. Surprise... > t:saveState does not check to see if the value attribute implements > StateHolder. > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: TOMAHAWK-509 > URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TOMAHAWK-509 > Project: MyFaces Tomahawk > Issue Type: Improvement > Reporter: Matt Hughes > > The JavaDocs for t:saveState say > (http://myfaces.apache.org/tomahawk/apidocs/org/apache/myfaces/custom/savestate/UISaveState.html > ): > --- > The object being saved must either: > * implement java.io.Serializable, or > * implement javax.faces.component.StateHolder and have a default > constructor. > ---- > However, the component does nothing if the object implements StateHolder. If > the object being saved does implement StateHolder and does not implement > Serializable, the component should use the StateHolder mechanism of > saveState()/restoreState(). This allows the object to determine what > properties it actually wants to have saved. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa - For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
