I have meant Facelet Tag Handlers of course ;) 2009/11/23 Gurkan Erdogdu <[email protected]>
> >>>And it must also work for AJAX requests and partial submits. > Those are handled by JSF2. So OWB supports this. > > 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 >
