On 5/23/07, Gary VanMatre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>From: "Craig McClanahan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > On 5/23/07, Gary VanMatre wrote: > > > > >From: Torsten Krah [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > >The question would be - as the second run is really useless - how to > > >identify annotated tiger beans. > > >If they can be identified (dont know if this is possible and how to do > > >it yet), than the code in run two can be fixed to do what the comment > > >does want to do, remove them, instead of removing the rest completely. > > > > > > > I'm thinking that we could just remove that bit of logic because the > > web container should fire the ServletRequestListener [1] regardless? > > > > It will indeed get called later, but outside the JSF lifecycle ... > which means you would not be able to get to the FacesContext in a > destroy() method. That's why this logic was inserted in the first > place. >Ah, I figured there was good reason. What if we delegated to the tiger LifecycleListener from the JSF phase listener - same pattern? // Delegate to the Tiger Extensions instance if it exists LifecycleListener tiger = tiger(); if (tiger != null) { tiger.contextDestroyed(event); } private LifecycleListener tiger() ...
At first blush this looks good, but I'm heads down getting ready for a trip to India next week, so I won't be able to actually play with this until the first week of June. Craig
> Craig > Gary > > However, there might be a funky case that resulted in this logic in the > > PhaseListener - not sure. > > > > [1] > > > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/shale/framework/trunk/shale-view/src/main/java/org/ > apache/shale/view/faces/LifecycleListener.java?view=markup > > > > > > >Torsten > > > > Gary > > > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > From: Torsten Krah > > To: [email protected] > > Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 19:11:48 +0000 > > Subject: Re: SHALE-409 fix > > The question would be - as the second run is really useless - how to > > identify annotated tiger beans. > > If they can be identified (dont know if this is possible and how to do > > it yet), than the code in run two can be fixed to do what the comment > > does want to do, remove them, instead of removing the rest completely. > > > > Torsten > > > > > > Am Dienstag, den 22.05.2007, 15:41 +0200 schrieb > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > > > Please fix the bug SHALE-409. > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > Mario Buonopane > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain > > privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have > > received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the > > original. Any other use of the email by you is prohibited. > > > > > >
