myfaces-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Bruno Aranda" <brunoara...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [Faces 1.2] RespStMgr.isPostback()
Date Thu, 19 Oct 2006 21:46:07 GMT
Mmm, I see, but these two jsf_state params are not present in the 1.1
myfaces impl trunk, due to some changes Martin did to the
HtmlResponseStateManager class a few days ago...

Bruno

On 10/19/06, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew@apache.org> wrote:
> jsf_state is myfaces. the param was simply forgotten by eg.
> (or at least to specifiy the name of that state_save_param)
>
> javax.faces.ViewState was added to JSF 1.2.
>
> the default needs to check against the param_map_size > 0
> (see javadoc)
>
> you cannot check only agains the javax.faces.ViewState for backward things.
> So my suggestion was doing the check in our htmlRespMgr against all these three
> (the two jsf_state guys from myfaces AND javax....)
>
> -M
>
> On 10/19/06, Bruno Aranda <brunoaranda@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I see that the jsf_state || jsf_state_64 guys have disappeared from
> > the current 1.1 myfaces implementation and replaced by the
> > "javax.faces.ViewState", used by jsf 1.2, so I guess we can just
> > implement as pointer in the jsf 1.2 javadocs (the default impl just
> > checks for the "javax.faces.ViewState" param,
> >
> > Bruno
> >
> > On 10/19/06, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew@apache.org> wrote:
> > > no, I mean,
> > >
> > > why not just abstract isPost() method and letting the impls deal with that?
> > >
> > > best would be to check against view_param. ok, that disables jsf 1.1 from work
> > > so looking for param_map size > 0 is ... ok.
> > >
> > > so each impl can check against view_param (that's jsf 1.2) and! what
> > > they did for jsf 1.1
> > > the jsf_state || jsf_state_64 in case of myfaces and com,sun.xxxx in case of
RI
> > >
> > > I don't see why checking (inside the IMPL of myfaces) against
> > > jsf_state || jsf_state_64 || jsf_view_param params will break jsf 1.2
> > >
> > > Since we don't touch the API RespStMgr. guy.
> > >
> > > -M
> > >
> > >
> > > On 10/19/06, Scott O'Bryan <darkarena@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I don't know why it's like this either, but unfortunately the snipit
> > > > defines a very clear behavior.  Breaking this contract will break thew
> > > > 1.2 spec.
> > > >
> > > > Scott
> > > >
> > > > Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
> > > > > to fast...  :)
> > > > >
> > > > > my question was, why not as abstract method and let the details to
the
> > > > > impl...
> > > > >
> > > > > and we need to *overhaul* this in htmlResp....
> > > > >
> > > > > -M
> > > > >
> > > > > On 10/19/06, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > >> does anyone know, why the spec says for RespStateMgr.isPostback()
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> <snip>
> > > > >> For backwards compatability with implementations of
> > > > >> ResponseStateManager prior to JSF 1.2, a default implementation
is
> > > > >> provided that consults the ExternalContext's requestParameterMap
and
> > > > >> return true if its size is greater than 0.
> > > > >> </snip>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> http://foo:port/myapp/random.faces?hack=me
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I think we need (for myfaces) to override the method in the
> > > > >> htmlRespStMgr..
> > > > >> to check against jsf_state || jsf_state_64 || jsf_view_param
> > > > >>
> > > > >> -M
> > > > >>
> > > > >> --
> > > > >> Matthias Wessendorf
> > > > >> http://tinyurl.com/fmywh
> > > > >>
> > > > >> further stuff:
> > > > >> blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
> > > > >> mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Matthias Wessendorf
> > > http://tinyurl.com/fmywh
> > >
> > > further stuff:
> > > blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
> > > mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Matthias Wessendorf
> http://tinyurl.com/fmywh
>
> further stuff:
> blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
> mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
>

Mime
View raw message