myfaces-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sylvain Vieujot <svieu...@apache.org>
Subject Re: MYFACES-152: ResponseWriter.endDocument() abuse breaks ADF Faces and Facelets
Date Tue, 27 Sep 2005 14:02:13 GMT
On Tue, 2005-09-27 at 15:55 +0200, Martin Marinschek wrote:

> Yes, but ideally we would find a way to integrate it into the
> life-cycle - not having a separate filter, with this we could
> "remember" the insert position.

Not having a separate filter would be good, but I don't know how this
can be done, as any HTML rendered before the JSF components would be
lost.



> Wait a minute - we could set the insert position by setting request
> parameters which the filter reads, right?

Sure !


> 
> regards,
> 
> Martin
> 
> On 9/27/05, Sylvain Vieujot <svieujot@apache.org> wrote:
> >  So, If I understand you well, the t:head for example would render something
> > like :
> >  <head><!-- Hello, I'm the tomahawk head Start -->
> >  ...
> >  <!-- Hello, I'm the tomahawk head End --></head>
> >
> >  And the extensions filter would first search for the "<!-- Hello, I'm the
> > tomahawk head Start -->" to get the insert position.
> >  If he doesn't find it, it would fallback on the current parsing.
> >
> >  Is that it ?
> >
> >
> >  On Tue, 2005-09-27 at 15:40 +0200, Martin Marinschek wrote:
> >  Basically, it would work very much like the approach we are using today.
> >
> > So we would need to do some caching of the response, and parsing in
> > the statements as we go. We would have defined markers, though, and
> > wouldn't need to search through the whole markup!
> >
> > We are doing this today for the rendering of the javascript for
> > commandLinks...
> >
> > If we don't find a way to fix this problem, we won't be able to use
> > the ADF components with MyFaces apps, nor will facelets be properly
> > working.
> >
> > regards,
> >
> > Martin
> >
> > On 9/27/05, Sylvain Vieujot <svieujot@apache.org> wrote:
> > > What do you mean by "he just won't have the extras" ?
> > >
> > > I think that if it's fully optional, it sure would bey good.
> > > I mean if the page has t:head & t:body, then it uses it, otherwise it
> > works
> > > as today.
> > >
> > > But if the t:head & t:body are mandatory, then this is a problem.
> > > About the RI, I meant that if an application is made to work with the RI,
> > > and then the user switches to MyFaces to use just a few components he
> > needs,
> > > he should not have to redesign his pages.
> > > Right now, in such a case you just setup the extensions filter, an add the
> > > MyFaces' tag where you want it.
> > > If you also had to redesign your pages to have a t:head & t:body, it would
> > > be quite a penalty for MyFaces switchers.
> > > That's what I meant by "you could not include just a t:component in a page
> > > that would otherwise for fine with the RI".
> > >
> > > I was also wondering how this can be done.
> > > If you are rendering an inputSuggestAjax for example, you'll need to
> > > include the js in the head.
> > > But the t:head should already be rendered.
> > > So I don't know how you're going to change a component that's already
> > > rendered.
> > >
> > > I once looked at something similar for the fileUpload, to add
> > automatically
> > > the proper encrypt method to the form, but I didn't find any good solution
> > > that wouldn't work as the extension filter (i.e. by parsing the generated
> > > HTML).
> > >
> > > Sylvain.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, 2005-09-27 at 14:53 +0200, Martin Marinschek wrote:
> > > I was waiting for your feedback here, Sylvain ;)
> > >
> > > I know this is problematic, for the reasons you pointed out. As things
> > > like addResource and the scroll-position javascript are special
> > > MyFaces functionality anyways, the user won't have the special
> > > features anyways with using the RI, so no change here.
> > >
> > > With using MyFaces, he won't get the functionality if he doesn't use
> > > t:head or t:body. It will still work, he just won't have the extras.
> > >
> > > regards,
> > >
> > > Martin
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 9/27/05, Sylvain Vieujot <svieujot@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > Hello Martin,
> > > >
> > > > I'm not sure I understand this.
> > > > Would you require every page having a t:component to have t:head &
> > t:body
> > > > components as well ?
> > > >
> > > > If this is the case, it would be a lead to a lot ot other problems I
> > > think.
> > > > For example, it would break old pages. Also, you could not include just
> > a
> > > > t:component in a page that would otherwise for fine with the RI.
> > > >
> > > > Sylvain.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 2005-09-27 at 12:33 +0200, Martin Marinschek wrote:
> > > > Hi *,
> > > >
> > > > There is a long standing bug MYFACES-152
> > > >
> > > > http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MYFACES-152
> > > >
> > > > which needs our attention, for facelets and ADF faces compatibility.
> > > >
> > > > What do you say to my suggestion to move writing these scripts to the
> > > > encodeEnd Method of a newly created t:head/t:body component?
> > > >
> > > > With this approach, we could also support including component
> > > > resources in the header much better, as we have a clear marker for the
> > > > major areas of the HTML page...
> > > >
> > > > regards,
> > > >
> > > > Martin
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > http://www.irian.at
> > > Your JSF powerhouse -
> > > JSF Trainings in English and German
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > http://www.irian.at
> > Your JSF powerhouse -
> > JSF Trainings in English and German
> >
> >
> 
> 
> --
> 
> http://www.irian.at
> Your JSF powerhouse -
> JSF Trainings in English and German

Mime
View raw message