Mmm, I see, but these two jsf_state params are not present in the 1.1 myfaces impl trunk, due to some changes Martin did to the HtmlResponseStateManager class a few days ago...
Bruno On 10/19/06, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
jsf_state is myfaces. the param was simply forgotten by eg. (or at least to specifiy the name of that state_save_param) javax.faces.ViewState was added to JSF 1.2. the default needs to check against the param_map_size > 0 (see javadoc) you cannot check only agains the javax.faces.ViewState for backward things. So my suggestion was doing the check in our htmlRespMgr against all these three (the two jsf_state guys from myfaces AND javax....) -M On 10/19/06, Bruno Aranda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I see that the jsf_state || jsf_state_64 guys have disappeared from > the current 1.1 myfaces implementation and replaced by the > "javax.faces.ViewState", used by jsf 1.2, so I guess we can just > implement as pointer in the jsf 1.2 javadocs (the default impl just > checks for the "javax.faces.ViewState" param, > > Bruno > > On 10/19/06, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > no, I mean, > > > > why not just abstract isPost() method and letting the impls deal with that? > > > > best would be to check against view_param. ok, that disables jsf 1.1 from work > > so looking for param_map size > 0 is ... ok. > > > > so each impl can check against view_param (that's jsf 1.2) and! what > > they did for jsf 1.1 > > the jsf_state || jsf_state_64 in case of myfaces and com,sun.xxxx in case of RI > > > > I don't see why checking (inside the IMPL of myfaces) against > > jsf_state || jsf_state_64 || jsf_view_param params will break jsf 1.2 > > > > Since we don't touch the API RespStMgr. guy. > > > > -M > > > > > > On 10/19/06, Scott O'Bryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I don't know why it's like this either, but unfortunately the snipit > > > defines a very clear behavior. Breaking this contract will break thew > > > 1.2 spec. > > > > > > Scott > > > > > > Matthias Wessendorf wrote: > > > > to fast... :) > > > > > > > > my question was, why not as abstract method and let the details to the > > > > impl... > > > > > > > > and we need to *overhaul* this in htmlResp.... > > > > > > > > -M > > > > > > > > On 10/19/06, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> does anyone know, why the spec says for RespStateMgr.isPostback() > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> <snip> > > > >> For backwards compatability with implementations of > > > >> ResponseStateManager prior to JSF 1.2, a default implementation is > > > >> provided that consults the ExternalContext's requestParameterMap and > > > >> return true if its size is greater than 0. > > > >> </snip> > > > >> > > > >> http://foo:port/myapp/random.faces?hack=me > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> I think we need (for myfaces) to override the method in the > > > >> htmlRespStMgr.. > > > >> to check against jsf_state || jsf_state_64 || jsf_view_param > > > >> > > > >> -M > > > >> > > > >> -- > > > >> Matthias Wessendorf > > > >> http://tinyurl.com/fmywh > > > >> > > > >> further stuff: > > > >> blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf > > > >> mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Matthias Wessendorf > > http://tinyurl.com/fmywh > > > > further stuff: > > blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf > > mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com > > > -- Matthias Wessendorf http://tinyurl.com/fmywh further stuff: blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
