On 10/4/06, Cyril Bouteille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Craig, Is there anything you could recommend us to try or any information we could provide you to help figure out the incompatibility with the latest glassfish v1 JSF implementation?
I'm running into a challenge trying to test this ... the shale-test framework doesn't yet support JSF 1.2 APIs. It turns out that Trinidad (the ADF Faces components that are incubating and will end up in the MyFaces project) have the same need, so I'm going to take a whack at updating the test classes first, so these problems can be debugged more easily. Also, as a temp workaround for us, is it safe/ok to use remoting w/o
shale-core in our classpath? It seems to work...
That should work fine if you only need the remoting features -- remoting only depends on Commons Logging (and JSF, of course). Craig Thanks,
Craig McClanahan wrote: > On 10/3/06, Paul Tabor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> There appears to be at least two issues with the current incarnation of >> Shale with Glassfish v1ur1b12, b13, b14 / JSF 1.2_02-b03-FCS. This >> problem has been verified with Shale 1.0.2, 1.0.3, and nightly build >> 20060926. >> >> 1) f:param's and jsp:param's do not get passed to the request >> parameters. >> >> 2) c:forEach appears to be broken when using a deferred value for the >> items attribute. The iteration works fine with Tomahawk t:dataList and >> with a standard h:dataTable. >> >> In both cases, the problems persist if the shale-core.jar is on the >> classpath. If we remove the shale-core.jar from our classpath, the >> c:forEach and f:param/jsp:param work fine. >> >> Would this have something to do with Shale's use of ValueBinding versus >> JSF 1.2's ValueExpression? > > > From our experience with JSF 1.2 in Creator, I suspect this isn't the > problem area ... the backwards compatibility seems to be quite good. > I do > suspect that this has sometthing to do with the changes in the way > that the > component tree is prebuilt (for JSP views) in JSF 1.2, versus the way > they > were built as the components were rendered in JSF 1.1. That's going > to take > some research to untangle. > > Craig >
