Hi, Since it's an internal API I think we should just flush the class down the drain.
~ Simon On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 12:47 PM, Jan-Kees van Andel < [email protected]> wrote: > Removing the <view-handler /> element from my faces-config.xml did the > trick. > > Funny that everything worked properly, except the rerendering. Should > we add some code to prevent people from making the same mistake? > > Thanks Mike, > JK > > > 2009/8/10 Michael Concini <[email protected]>: > > Jan-Kees van Andel wrote: > >>> > >>> The default in the current 2.0 runtime should be using > >>> org.apache.mfyaces.application.ViewHandlerImpl, which is a single class > >>> implementation for both JSP and facelets. It uses the FactoryFinder to > >>> get > >>> the right ViewDeclarationLanguage implementation depending on whether > >>> you're > >>> using JSP or facelets since nearly all of the actual work is done in > the > >>> VDL > >>> classes now. The old JSP and facelets ViewHandler impls shouldn't > really > >>> be > >>> used anymore and as far as I know haven't been updated to the 2.0 spec. > >>> > >> > >> I'm gonna check it tonight (@work now), but the last time I checked, I > >> saw the ViewHandlerImpl being returned, but I have to check to be > >> sure. > >> > >> But you're saying that specifying the <view-handler /> element in > >> faces-config.xml is redundant and probably incorect? In that case, I'm > >> gonna remove it and check if it works. I've added it a while ago > >> because I got the JSP ViewHandler back then. Maybe things have changed > >> in the meantime. > >> > >> > > > > That makes sense if you had originally set things up more than a few > weeks > > ago. The new ViewHandlerImpl class was in place but we hadn't changed > the > > default config to use it until sometime in July once most of the VDL > impls > > were ready and we were trying to get some apps working. > >>> > >>> If you're getting the JSP VDL back from ViewHandlerImpl, then there is > >>> something not configured right either. Maybe in our default config > files > >>> or > >>> the factory definition? > >>> Let me know if you need me to check into it and I should be able to > later > >>> this week. I'm on vacation visiting family right now though so it > might > >>> be > >>> a few days. > >>> > >> > >> Thanks for the offer. I'm gonna debug a bit first, and then I'll come > >> back to you. > >> > >> Regards, > >> Jan-Kees > >> > >> > > > > Sounds good...shoot an email to let me know if you need me to check on > it. > > Thanks, > > Mike > > >
