On 7/26/07, Scott O'Bryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This will not work in cases where a renderkit may override the UIViewRoot
> (like Trinidad).
Trinidad doesn't override the UIViewRoot.
> Even if decorating occurs, 301 tries to implement
> namespacing by making it's UIViewRoot implement a naming container.
> Something which the decorators are probably NOT going to do...
But how do you get that UIViewRoot in there? There's
two mechanisms - override createViewRoot() in ViewHandler,
or configure a UIViewRoot subclass on the Application...
which do you do?
>
> Either way, I think you answered my question. I remember us discussing this
> in the EG and we basically said that if the base faces UIViewRoot is
> obtained then we would wrap it in a naming container version of the class.
> But if we are using a custom UIViewRoot, then it is up to that
> implementation to handle namespacing.. So in short I think we can keep this
> optimization in so long as we enhance Trinidad's UIViewRoot to support a
> naming container
Trinidad doesn't have a UIViewRoot...
-- Adam
> OR handle namespacing via another mechanism.
>
> This had a lot of discussion in 301 and it was our only real alternative.
> That said, I'm hoping namespacing is something that can be added to JSF 2.0.
>
> Scott
>
>
> On 7/26/07, Adam Winer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This code is part of a major optimization for state saving;
> > it's just as pertinent in 1.2 as it was in 1.1.
> > It can be disabled with the CACHE_VIEW_ROOT flag.
> >
> > However, disabling it should be a last resort. How does
> > the bridge swap in a custom UIViewRoot implementation
> > if *not* by registering a subclass of UIViewRoot on the application
> > (which can be done declaratively in META-INF/faces-config.xml)?
> >
> > -- Adam
> >
> >
> > On 7/26/07, Scott O'Bryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Hey guys,
> > >
> > > There is some oddness that I'm seeing in Trinidad which is going to
> > > cause some issues with the 301 implementation and I'm trying to
> > > understand the problem so that I can figure out whether we need to go
> > > another route with 301 or what.. Here is the code I'm looking at:
> > >
> > > public UIViewRoot popRoot(FacesContext fc)
> > > {
> > > UIViewRoot root = null;
> > > Object viewRootState = null;
> > > // we need to synchronize because we are mutating _root
> > > // which is shared between simultaneous requests from the same
> user:
> > > synchronized(this)
> > > {
> > > if (_root != null)
> > > {
> > > root = _root;
> > > viewRootState = _viewRootState;
> > > // we must clear the cached viewRoot. This is because
> > > UIComponent trees
> > > // are mutable and if the back button
> > > // is used to come back to an old PageState, then it would be
> > > // really bad if we reused that component tree:
> > > _root = null;
> > > _viewRootState = null;
> > > }
> > > }
> > >
> > > if (root != null)
> > > {
> > > // If an error happens during updateModel, JSF 1.1 does not
> > > // clear FacesEvents (or FacesMessages, IIRC), so any pending
> > > // events will still be present, on the subsequent request.
> > > // so to clear the events, we create a new UIViewRoot.
> > > // must get the UIViewRoot from the application so that
> > > // we pick up any custom ViewRoot defined in faces-config.xml:
> > > UIViewRoot newRoot = (UIViewRoot)
> > > fc.getApplication
> ().createComponent(UIViewRoot.COMPONENT_TYPE);
> > >
> > > // must call restoreState so that we setup attributes,
> listeners,
> > > // uniqueIds, etc ...
> > > newRoot.restoreState(fc, viewRootState);
> > >
> > > // we need to use a temp list because as a side effect of
> > > // adding a child to a UIComponent, that child is removed from
> > > // the parent UIComponent. So the following will break:
> > > // newRoot.getChildren().addAll(root.getChildren());
> > > // because "root"'s child List is being mutated as the List
> > > // is traversed.
> > > List<UIComponent> temp = new
> > > ArrayList<UIComponent>(root.getChildCount());
> > > temp.addAll(root.getChildren());
> > > newRoot.getChildren().addAll(temp);
> > > return newRoot;
> > > }
> > >
> > > return null;
> > > }
> > > }
> > >
> > > The part that is going to cause an issue is where root != null. The
> > > reason for this is that in the portal environemnt we use a custom
> > > UIViewRoot that implements a naming container. Therefore, doing this
> > > call gives us the original UIViewRoot as opposed to the bridge's
> > > UIViewRoot. The comment seems to indicate that this was added for JSF
> > > 1.1, so is this needed in the 1.2 branch? If so, when would this case
> > > occur and is there anyway to not have to do this?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Scott O'Bryan
> > >
> >
>
>
