Hi!
Yes, I use server-side state saving and session-scoped BackingBeans. My BackingBeans don't have any superclasses, and don't implement Serializable or StateHolder directly. Referencing to your explanation, the Container seems to manage the state saving. Is this really container dependent, that said, is it possible, that the app won't run in a different container. Do I have to implement Serializable in the BackingBeans, that the app is container-independent, and will that be enough? (that isn't mentioned in the JSF book from Andy Bosch that I read, is that MyFaces specific?) Regards, Matthias > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Auftrag > von Mike Kienenberger > Gesendet: Dienstag, 29. November 2005 17:24 > An: MyFaces Discussion > Betreff: Re: WIKI article - How JSF State Management Works > > > It's hard to comment without a specific use case. > > You only have to implement Serializable or StateHolder if you're going > to save the bean. Maybe you're not saving the bean. If you're using > server-side state management and session-scoped beans, it'd depend on > your container whether they're "saved." > > If you're using client-side state management, they should always > be "saved." > > Also, check your inheritance hierarchy. Perhaps some base superclass > is already implementing Serializable. > > On 11/29/05, Matthias Kahlau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi! > > > > > > I have a question regarding a MyFaces WIKI article about state > management. > > In the article is described, that BackingBeans will have to > implement the > > Serializable interface or StateHolder. I neither implement > Serializable, nor > > StateHolder, but my BackingBeans work. Isn't the article > up-to-date, or is > > there some misunderstanding? > > > > http://wiki.apache.org/myfaces/How_JSF_State_Management_Works > > > > > > > > Regards, > > Matthias > > > >
