myfaces-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Adam Winer <>
Subject Re: Moving forward on the Oracle donation
Date Thu, 29 Dec 2005 01:05:09 GMT

ADF Faces is more than just a component set - there's also
framework features, particularly processScope and the
Dialog Framework.  Those are some of the big things that we
use a ViewHandler for.  There is some component-specific
ViewHandler code too, specifically the notion of some viewIds
that are mapped to internal code - this way, we can have
components that show specific popups without forcing the
user to install JSPs.

-- Adam

On 12/28/05, Werner Punz <> wrote:
> Adam Winer wrote:
> > My assumption is that the initial arrival will be akin to Tobago,
> > part of MyFaces, yes, but a third set alongside Tomahawk
> > and Tobago.
> >
> > This of course raises major questions going forward of how
> > to integrate all of these into one coherent set - and, of course,
> > the question of whether to integrate at all (default answer - yes).
> > These aren't new questions for MyFaces - it already exists within
> > the context of Tomahawk + Tobago, but it does make it an
> > even bigger and tougher issue.
> >
> > BTW, yes, we've got our own ViewHandler (currently registered
> > implicitly via META-INF/faces-config.xml).  The big nastiness
> > with all these ViewHandlers is that ordering effects can be distinctly
> > nasty to work with.  The best thing to do, IMO, will be writing a single
> > powerful ViewHandler with lots of separte, well-defined pluggability
> > points.  We do some of this sort of stuff already with a Service
> > API that lets you define optional interfaces on a RenderKit that'll
> > get called as needed by the ViewHandler - no private IP being
> > revealed here, just google "ExtendedRenderKitService" for
> > a taste of the idea :)
> >
> Well the best issue probably would be to get rid of the view handler
> depencencies at component level at all. One of the biggest problems is
> the pattern used by the view handlers (decorators), it is rather hard to
> combine those.
> Add to that the problem, that facelets and tapestry also use theirs.
> One good thing about the Tomahawk components is, they do not use
> any custom view handler at all, so the integration of Tomahawk into
> other jsf implementations and libraries is rather straigforward.
> I am not sure if the view handlers of tobago and adf are needed that way
> anymore, maybe something like facelets would be a better approach
> (everyone seems to settle on that one as it looks currently)
> To my understanding Tobago used its own view handler to get rid of jsp
> tags and to use its own layouting mechanism, maybe there is a huge
> redundancy there.

View raw message