OK, so it sounds like a simple fix here is that Trinidad should
go through ViewHandler.createViewRoot() instead of the
Application to create the view root?
-- Adam
On 7/27/07, Martin Marinschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Adam,
>
> the currently choosen route is to override createViewRoot() in ViewHandler.
>
> In this case, the created UIViewRoot can be checked --> if it
> incorporates namespace-handling, there is no need to wrap it, if it
> doesn't it is wrapped by the portlet-bridge's own UIViewRoot.
>
> regards,
>
> Martin
>
> On 7/27/07, Adam Winer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 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
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
>
> http://www.irian.at
>
> Your JSF powerhouse -
> JSF Consulting, Development and
> Courses in English and German
>
> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
>
