Of course you aren't, Gary, because my panties are not in a bunch. You are the one with his panties in a bunch because you are here for JSF and JSF alone anyway and you don't like me having pointed out that your contributions did not merit your status. You can side with Kamini if you like, but she is the one of the real trolls on this list. You just don't like what I say. If you have trouble with me because of what I say, then you have black and white thinking. If you like what people like Kamini say, then you are just beyond interest.
On 5/21/06, Gary VanMatre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>From: "Dakota Jack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > You are right, for once. I only speak for myself. Those who are > unwilling to listen to others are condemned by their own choice to a > life of ignorance. > Sheese, sorry this got your panties in a bunch. > On 5/21/06, Kimani Darisha wrote: > > To anyone following these thread, please ignore this fool. He does > > not speak for anyone, and is only here to confuse people. > > > > K. > > > > On 5/21/06, Dakota Jack wrote: > > > I have seen no "very popular need". This is like Bush-Speak. Baloney > > > parading as truth. > > > > > > On 5/21/06, Don Brown wrote: > > > > > > > > After talking with several on this list about the possibility of > > > > combining the best of JSF and Action 2 in a unified framework from a > > > > user perspective, I have completed a first cut at JSF support in Action > > > > 2 with this loftly goal. > > > > > > > > From a user perspective, you still have one configuration file, > > > > struts-action.xml, which maps urls to actions and actions to results. > > > > However, you can optionally include the JSF interceptor stack and use > > > > the JSF result, allowing you to use JSF components in the view. You > > > > still define alternative results the same way, still have an action > > > > class per url, and can still use the normal GET-style navigation. > > > > > > > > From a framework perspective, I split the lifecycle class into > > > > indivudal Action 2 interceptors, one per phase. The final render phase > > > > I turned into a Result. Upon initialization, I replace the navigation > > > > handler with one that simply records outcomes as if they were result > > > > codes from an Action. Also, the setup inserts a variable resolver that > > > > exposes the action instance to the EL bindings. Therefore, the flow > > > > goes: determine action/namespace -> run normal interceptors -> run JSF > > > > phases -> invoke JSF action (optional) -> invoke SAF2 action -> invoke > > > > render phase. The purpose of the Action then becomes as a general setup > > > > for the page, much like the Shale pre-render hook. > > > > > > > > I chose this approach because I find the Action 2 controller stronger > > > > (JSF was always meant as a view tech, as I understand it), so think it > > > > better suited for navigation, state-less actions, and centralizing page > > > > setup code. JSF is better for complex single pages or page groups where > > > > different stateful components might be needing to submit the page > > > > without affecting others. > > > > > > > > To demonstrate this integration, I added a JSF tab to the showcase. As > > > > a sneak peek, here is the action mapping for a JSF page that edits an > > > > employee: > > > > > > > > > > > > class="org.apache.struts.action2.showcase.jsf.EmployeeAction"> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > index > > > > > > > > > > > > Notice the default page is the JSF page, but other navigation is handled > > > > by traditional Action 2 results. Incidently, this means only POSTs for > > > > real form submits and bookmarkable GETS everywhere else. > > > > > > > > I'm sure there is a lot of refinement to do, but I'm hoping this general > > > > approach will solve the very popular need to combine the two frameworks > > > > in a seamless way for the user. I'm particularly interested in feedback > > > > from the JSF folks, as I'm pretty new to the framework. > > > > > > > > Don > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > "You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it float on its back." > > > ~Dakota Jack~ > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > -- > "You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it float on its back." > ~Dakota Jack~ > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
-- "You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it float on its back." ~Dakota Jack~ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
