Looks ok to me, the parsing is not omitted but instead
the option to render the head and body without parsing is added.
Either way, I have the parser in place now and will commit it tomorrow.
So we have the harder part in place and working and it is fast enoguh.

80.000 characters are handled within 1.5 seconds which is fast enough!
I will commit it tomorrow since I am currently at a customer...


Werner



Roger Kitain schrieb:
Ganesh wrote:

[2] The jsdoc on javax.faces.response defines a behaviour for update
elements with the id javax.faces.ViewRoot. By testing with the RI I
found out that this behaviour is triggered if an AJAX requests triggers
a naviagtion rule that leads to a different page. It's a cool thing to
have a well defined behaviour in this case, but the spec doesn't define
it. It's just what Mojarra does. Can you please add a paragraph that
defines the circumstances under which the server has to respond with
javax.faces.ViewRoot?
This is now fixed - see: https://javaserverfaces-spec-public.dev.java.net/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=554

[3] In the javax.faces.ViewRoot case Mojarra returns a complete document
with DOCTYPE, html, head and body. It is left to the Javascript
implementation to separate these and replace the head and body sections.
This is a tedious task involving a parser that deals with html comments,
Javascript comments and CDATA sections within the HTML page. The
Javascript code Mojarra brings for this is unsufficient and fails for
many cases. We are currently working on a parser. Things would be a lot
easier if the spec would force the server to return separate CDATA
blocks within javax.faces.ViewRoot for the head and the body tag and to
omit the html tag and the DOCROOT. This can't be too hard to implement,
because head and body are rendered by h:head and h:body. Can you please define the format for javax.faces.ViewRoot to contain 2 CDATA sections, 1 optional with the head tag and 1 required with the body tag?
Fixed- See: https://javaserverfaces-spec-public.dev.java.net/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=557

Best Regards,
Ganesh Jung




Reply via email to