Hi Howard, If someone proposed a fix for me I must have missed it, so no my issues are still not resolved unfortunately. I don't think it's possible to write it in another fashion.
Problem #1: enctype="multipart/form-data" not working. Not sure if anyone tried the demo app I linked in the jira but for now I can't investigate it any further on my own. Problem #2 I also have a problem with duplicated id's but it would take some time to reproduce it in a demo app so I'm hesitant to bring it up. Basically a lot of ajax, dynamic includes, c:forEach, ui:repeat, some bindings :-) On 10 March 2014 18:24, Howard W. Smith, Jr. <[email protected]> wrote: > Karl, does this fix your issue and or meet your requirements? Looking > forward to your response. I'm sure others are, too. :-) > > Can you refactor your code, so it is not dependent on c:forEach? Maybe > Leonardo can advise on that, too. > On Mar 9, 2014 9:24 PM, "Leonardo Uribe" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi > > > > @MYFACES-3865 It was fixed in 2.2.1, and the artifacts will be released > > in no time. The fix for c:forEach was really complex and painful, but it > > was finally done and the result is the best option we will have. Finally > > we have a proper solution that will work in complex cases and will > > allow all facelets dinamic tags to work well together. > > > > The hack done for: > > > > org.apache.myfaces.STRICT_JSF_2_FACELETS_COMPATIBILITY > > > > Is meant for people that requires the old (and buggy) logic from facelets > > 1.1.x, so it is expected to do not work in some cases. > > > > My personal perception is 2.2.1 will be very stable, it is obvious to > have > > some small bugs, but in this release we created a lot of junit tests, so > > the probability of find bugs has become small. Anyway, we will be eager > > to check and fix all new issues as soon as possible. > > > > regards, > > > > Leonardo Uribe > > > > 2014-03-09 18:26 GMT-05:00 Howard W. Smith, Jr. <[email protected] > >: > > > On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 5:20 PM, Ludovic Pénet <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > >> I found 2.2 to be very stable, almost a drop in replacement for 2.1. > > > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > I was using MyFaces 2.1.13 prior using MyFaces 2.2.0 (final), and > MyFaces > > > 2.2.0 seems just as stable as 2.1.13 is/was. I'm very pleased/satisfied > > > with myFaces 2.2.0, and i have had 'no' issues at all. :) > > >
