Since Ed emailed you back, you could press him for further questions. I totally agree with you that it doesn't make sense.
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 09:17:08 -0600, Jonathan Eric Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > True, but, how hard is it for them to add less than a line of code to a few > classes. They could easily do it in 1.2 if they wanted. Anyone know when 1.2 > is due for release? > > Jon > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Heath Borders" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "MyFaces Discussion" <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 7:10 PM > Subject: Re: FYI: Fw: DataModels not Serializable? > > >I agree with you that the default implementation should be > > serializable, but its really not hard to do what Ed did and set up > > your own instance of DataModel. > > > > > > On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 16:51:31 -0600, Jonathan Eric Miller > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Here is a response that I received from one of the members of the JSF > >> team. > >> > >> The file attachment is actually a gzipped zip file for some odd reason > >> (not > >> a tar file). > >> > >> I asked him why the DataModels aren't Serializable to begin with. > >> Hopefully, > >> he'll respond. To me it seems completely counter-intuitive that they > >> aren't. > >> > >> Jon > >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Ed Burns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> To: "Jonathan Eric Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 4:29 PM > >> Subject: DataModels not Serializable? > >> > >> >>>>>> On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 10:12:57 -0600, Jonathan Eric Miller > >> >>>>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > >> > > >> > JEM> Up until I started using JSF, I always made my beans Serializable > >> > JEM> so that I could restart my Tomcat server and have it save and > >> > JEM> restore my session state. Since, DataModel isn't Serializable, I > >> > JEM> can't do this anymore. Are you saying that JSF internals don't > >> > JEM> serialize themselves, therefore, even if the DataModels were > >> > JEM> Serializable, it still wouldn't work (i.e. you can't restart > >> > Tomcat > >> > JEM> and expect a JSF application to continue to function remembering > >> > JEM> it's former state after the restart)? > >> > > >> > The state management mechanism in Faces is only intended to save state > >> > across HTTP requests, not server invocations. If you happen to have > >> > your actual DataModel subclass in session scope, there's nothing > >> > preventing you from making your implementation implement Serializable. > >> > > >> > I've modified the guessNumber example to use a managed bean that > >> > extends > >> > DataModel and implements Serializable. I tested that the bean persists > >> > in session across tomcat invocations. Therefore, I know it works. > >> > > >> > Ed > >> > > >> > Attached is the source you can overlay onto your jsf-demo repository. > >> > > >> > > >> > >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | {home: 407 294 2468, office: 408 884 9519 OR > >> > x31640} > >> > | homepage: | http://purl.oclc.org/NET/edburns/ > >> > | aim: edburns0sunw | iim: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > -Heath Borders-Wing > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > -- -Heath Borders-Wing [EMAIL PROTECTED]
