On 4/30/07, Tim McConnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Adam, thanks very much for reviewing my patches so promptly. Here are my comments to your comments: ADFFACES-475: - If the method name is immaterial at runtime then the only change for the companion MYFACES-1599 JIRA would be to update the return value which I've done with the patch attached to MYFACES-1599. If no one objects I think I should just close ADFFACES-475. ADFFACES-476: - I really like that solution. I shall provide you with another patch (assuming I can discern what the spec components are).
I wouldn't hardcode in the plugin what a spec component is, etc. I'd make it a property of the plugin, so that in a pom you could have <idExpressions>false</idExpressions> ... and it would turn it off for that project.
ADFFACES-477: - To be honest I was a bit hesitate to alter the current "CAN_COERCE" check since I was not fully certain of the implications. If there are none, then it seems the _CAN_COERCE map can be removed as well since that is the only place it is used. If that is the case I shall provide you with another patch.
I'm not 100% sure of the implications either. :) I'll run some tests and make sure this doesn't break anything obvious. BTW, does it matter whether a deferred-value type is java.lang.Boolean or boolean? I figure they're identical in runtime behavior, since null will be coerced to Boolean.FALSE and false (I think). -- Adam
