On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 11:42 PM, Scott O'Bryan <darkar...@gmail.com> wrote: > It's going to be JSF 2.0/Portal 2.0. I'm not sure if the JCP is going to > look at a Portal 1.0 Spec for JSF 2.0. The leanings on the current EG's > were that they were not. Portal 1.0 has some pretty major issues in dealing > with AJAX and whatnot so such a specification would be problematic.
even due to the fact that I am mostly a portlet ignorant, this makes sense to only specify Portlet 2.0 w/ JSF 2 > > As for the VDL, simply put the current JSP VDL casts to some servlet objects > (at least in the R.I.) to do some things. ;) <yoda>ClassCastExceptions do > not an effective bridge make..</yoda> Not to surprised if myfaces does that too. Filing bugs is welcome. Note that Apache MyFaces 2.0 is already alpha and we are not too far away from a real release... > > The current bridge overrides the ViewHandler.renderView to overcome this > problem, but I thought it might be nice to synchronize some code up. As it > is right now, I'm merging the code from the ViewHandler.renderView in the > Portlet 2.0 bridge with the current R.I. There are some strange issues > which I'm overcoming, but evenutally it might be nice to allow MyFaces > development to continue to drive these view handlers. sharing is good. So you are basically suggesting to reuse the ViewDeclarationLanguage from MyFaces (including ViewDeclarationLanguageBase and ViewDeclarationLanguageStrategy) and make them part of the shared project ? -Matthias > > <shrug> > > Just a thought.. > > Scott > > Ganesh wrote: >> >> Cool, you're working on this. Just a week ago I was stuck with >> the current portal - JSF2.0 problem. Are you doing portal 1.0 - >> JSF 2.0 or portal 2.0 - JSF 2.0? >> >> I not yet clear about why the bridge needs to care about the >> VDL. I thought it would suffice to brige the portal lifecyle >> phases and forward the requests to the faces servlet? >> >> Best regards, >> Ganesh >> >> Scott O'Bryan schrieb: >>> >>> Hey Guys, >>> >>> I'm working on a preliminary version of the portlet-bridge for JSF2.0.. >>> Looking at the current R.I. implementations, it appears as if I'm going to >>> have to come up with my own implementations for the >>> ViewDeclairationLanguage's for the bridge. Although the R.I. is laid out so >>> that their implementations of the ViewDeclairationLanguage's is easily >>> extended, everything is impl. Since the Portlet Bridge is an Apache project >>> and should be container agnostic, I'm basically stuck with two choices: >>> >>> 1. Write the bridge's own implementation of the >>> ViewDeclairationLanguage for both JSF and facelets, or >>> 2. Just use/extend the ViewDeclairationLanguage for MyFaces from the >>> shared project >>> >>> I would rather do the latter so that the implementations of the >>> ViewDeclairationLanguage becomes consistent and, ideally, would allow us to >>> work with both the R.I. and MyFaces (albeit with the MyFaces code handling >>> the ViewDeclairationLanguage in the portal. >>> >>> Any preferences or comments of the feasibility of implementing this? I >>> haven't looked at this in depth but wanted to gauge people's reactions >>> before I went too far down the rabbit hole. >>> >>> Scott > > -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
