[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PORTLETBRIDGE-47?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12632416#action_12632416
]
Scott O'Bryan commented on PORTLETBRIDGE-47:
--------------------------------------------
Yeah, I think we may need to update something on the spec here. Although the
JSF specification does not SAY this has to be a PortletContext, it does at
least infer IMO that we are expecting a context object and not a config object.
As such, I would say that in order to be compatible with legacy bridges and
avoid a ton of confusion - not to mention save me a bunch of work on Trinidad,
commons, etc. then we should adjust the spec to set this prefix up in the
GenericPortlet prior to calling the bridge. OR we should have some other way
to reference it.
I'll bring this up to the EG and get a verdict. Thanks for catching this..
> BridgeImpl pass PortletConfig instance to FacesContextFactory instead
> PortletContext
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: PORTLETBRIDGE-47
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PORTLETBRIDGE-47
> Project: MyFaces Portlet Bridge
> Issue Type: Bug
> Affects Versions: 1.0.0-alpha-2
> Reporter: Leonardo Uribe
> Priority: Critical
>
> On myfaces portlet bridge (for jsf 1.2) do this
> (org.apache.myfaces.portlet.faces.bridge.BridgeImpl line 240):
> try
> {
> // Get the FacesContext instance for this request
> context =
> getFacesContextFactory().getFacesContext(mPortletConfig, request,
> response, getLifecycle());
> It should pass a javax.portlet.PortletContext instance instead, because this
> is the expected var here.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
