Mailing-List: contact dev-help@myfaces.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "MyFaces Development" <dev@myfaces.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of brunoaranda@gmail.com designates
 64.233.162.195 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        b=qtqcCxNi32rBle0yk7WrmsBZGVLA59ANNC+mkRbfco6btFS+eh1UySo+D1vGJVj0ZF5iX09DK1iBGgQLRciNk7iXCxfgJKHhXmhFInwZsKJGIV7Gp8sZd/F+5V120sdi5RuIAm/QbUUxD+B4CVD5Ym6fOPtuQIRG0Vho144Ha20=
Message-ID: <1a681ff20610191431k495de42bw3136a19de3cd8550@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 22:31:38 +0100
From: "Bruno Aranda" <brunoaranda@gmail.com>
To: "MyFaces Development" <dev@myfaces.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [Faces 1.2] RespStMgr.isPostback()
In-Reply-To: <71235db40610191349m353f82d8pe971cfaded1d562f@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <71235db40610191253i4879a0e1gdddcc9e5fa4394e9@mail.gmail.com>
	 <71235db40610191254h2be08acej1849e9c23d790500@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4537E223.8050404@gmail.com>
	 <71235db40610191349m353f82d8pe971cfaded1d562f@mail.gmail.com>

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
>