Hi Michael, Definitely 3. It's true that JSF 2.0's ViewHandler no longer do much, it pretty much only deal with HTTP headers and such while most of the work is delegated to the VDL. 2 might break the TCK I think so it's not a good option.
~ Simon On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Michael Concini <mconc...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm currently looking at updating JspViewhandlerImpl and > FaceletViewHandlerImpl for MYFACES-2219. As I'm looking at this, it seems > that many/most of the methods that need to be implemented or updated will be > identical for both JSP and Facelet. > I see three potential ways of handling this: > 1) Have lots of duplicate code in both impl classes. 2) Implement in the > API.where possible > 3) Create an abstract parent class that extends ViewHandler for the impl > classes to extend from. > The first option is not ideal for obvious reasons. With respect to the > second option, the JSF spec already forces a lot of implementing in the API. > I'd rather not add more if possible since its really not the place for it. > My preference would be for the third option. I could push the ViewHandler > method impls common to both Facelet and JSP to a new class (maybe > org.apache.myfaces.application.AbstractViewHandler) and then implement the > method which are different for each in the JSP and Facelet impls > respectively. > Thanks for you input, > Mike >
