I think that JSP and Tag Handlers are old tech. Java EE may remove those parts from the specification in the next revision of the spec. Pure JSF is always be in favor.
2009/11/23 Mark Struberg <[email protected]> > Imho it should. > > And it must also work for AJAX requests and partial submits. > > LieGrue, > strub > > --- Gurkan Erdogdu <[email protected]> schrieb am Mo, 23.11.2009: > > > Von: Gurkan Erdogdu <[email protected]> > > Betreff: Re: Review of WebBeansPhaseListener > > An: [email protected] > > Datum: Montag, 23. November 2009, 8:04 > > Hi Sven; > > > > AFAIK, conversation is defined for using it in pure JSF in > > the > > specification. I do not know whether it supports tag > > handlers or not. > > > > --Gurkan > > > > 2009/11/23 Sven Linstaedt <[email protected]> > > > > > I have found a issue, that makes the second point > > necessary to implement: > > > > > > If one uses a conversation scoped bean in an > > expression, which is evaluated > > > during restore view as part of a tag handler (e.g. in > > c:forEach), we need > > > the conversation already to be restored, because > > otherwise two > > > conversations > > > will be in action during one request: one from the > > beginning the request > > > till after restore view phase, and another one (the > > "right" one actually) > > > in > > > the other phases. > > > > > > Because before restore view no view and therefore no > > cid is available > > > (well, > > > sound reasonable ;) our only chance is to retrieve the > > cid from something > > > else. The current implementation attaches the cid to > > every form's action > > > url > > > due to ConversationAwareViewHandler, so we could use > > this information for > > > restoring the conversation. Does anybody has > > objections or a better > > > solution > > > regarding this point in mind? > > > > > > br, Sven > > > > > > > > > > > > 2009/11/15 Gurkan Erdogdu <[email protected]> > > > > > > > Hi Sven; > > > > > > > > Very good points :) I will try to correct those > > issues. > > > > > > > > PS: If you would like to patch, you are always > > welcome :) > > > > > > > > Thanks again for helping us! > > > > > > > > --Gurkan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > From: Sven Linstaedt <[email protected]> > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > Sent: Sun, November 15, 2009 4:02:57 PM > > > > Subject: Review of WebBeansPhaseListener > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > I have some questions about the JSF integration > > of OWB, which come to my > > > > mind when dealing with the source code: > > > > > > > > _ JSF PhaseListener have to be threadsafe (see > > JSF 2.0 spec, chapter > > > > 12.3.), > > > > but WebBeansPhaseListener references a obvious > > context dependent > > > > conversation. A quick look at mojarra indicates > > there is a singleton > > > > instantiated for each PhaseListener, so I supose > > > WebBeansPhaseListenerwill > > > > get into troubles when serving multiple requests. > > -> Use a ThreadLocal > > > > instead? > > > > > > > > _ Conversation scoped beans might be accessed > > *during* restore view > > > during > > > > a > > > > FaceletHandler evaluation. But the > > ConversationContext is restored > > > *after* > > > > restore view. -> Are there any limitations or > > drawbacks restoring the > > > > ConversationContext *before* restore view? Weld > > is also doing this as far > > > > as > > > > I remember. > > > > > > > > _ Make sure the ViewRoot's initial state is > > marked *before* modifying > > > it's > > > > attributes, because otherwise the stored > > information may be lost. > > > > > > > > _ WebBeansPhaseListener.fromRedirect ThreadLocal > > seems not to be resetted > > > > anywhere. Furthermore the initializer of this > > ThreadLocal is done once > > > (?) > > > > in a static block, and not per created Thread > > using something like > > > > > > > > public static ThreadLocal<Boolean> > > fromRedirect = new > > > > ThreadLocal<Boolean>() > > > > { > > > > protected Boolean initialValue() { > > > > return false; > > > > } > > > > } > > > > > > > > In addition, if this static field is public, it > > should at least be final. > > > > > > > > > > > > br, Sven > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Gurkan Erdogdu > > http://gurkanerdogdu.blogspot.com > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Sie sind Spam leid? Yahoo! Mail verfügt über einen herausragenden Schutz > gegen Massenmails. > http://mail.yahoo.com > -- Gurkan Erdogdu http://gurkanerdogdu.blogspot.com
