myfaces-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael Freedman <michael.freed...@oracle.com>
Subject Re: FW: Myfaces Portlet does not work when a bean is stored in Requestscope...
Date Wed, 23 Apr 2008 21:18:05 GMT
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
  <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Okay -- the JBoss portal must be validating the faces-config.xml file
included in the jar.&nbsp; Anyway you can disable this?&nbsp; If not you will
need to remove the offending stuff from the faces-config.xml file.&nbsp; The
initial lines of the file (after the comments are: <br>
<span class="m">&lt;</span><span class="t">faces-config</span><span
 class="t"> version</span><span class="m">="</span><b>1.2</b><span
 class="m">"</span><span class="ns"> xmlns</span><span class="m">="</span><b
 class="ns"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://java.sun.com/xml/ns/javaee">http://java.sun.com/xml/ns/javaee</a></b><span
class="m">"</span><span
 class="ns"> xmlns:bridge</span><span class="m">="</span><b class="ns"><a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.apache.org/myfaces/xml/ns/bridge/bridge-extension">http://www.apache.org/myfaces/xml/ns/bridge/bridge-extension</a></b><span
 class="m">"</span><span class="m">&gt;<br>
<br>
The line that is failing is the "</span><span class="ns">xmlns:bridge</span><span
 class="m">="</span><b class="ns"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.apache.org/myfaces/xml/ns/bridge/bridge-extension">http://www.apache.org/myfaces/xml/ns/bridge/bridge-extension</a></b><span
 class="m">".&nbsp; As the xsd doesn't (yet) live here.&nbsp; Merely remove it.&nbsp;
Also remove:<br>
</span>
<div class="c" style="margin-left: 1em; text-indent: -2em;"><a class="b"
 onfocus="h()" onclick="return false" href="#">-</a><tt> <span
 class="m">&lt;</span><span class="t">application-extension</span><span
 class="m">&gt;</span></tt></div>
<div>
<div class="e">
<div class="c" style="margin-left: 1em; text-indent: -2em;"><tt><a
 class="b" onfocus="h()" onclick="return false" href="#">-</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
<span
 class="m">&lt;</span><span class="t">bridge:excluded-attributes</span><span
 class="m">&gt;</span></tt></div>
<div>
<div class="e">
<div style="margin-left: 1em; text-indent: -2em;"><tt><span class="b">&nbsp;</span>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
<span class="m">&lt;</span><span class="t">bridge:excluded-attribute</span><span
 class="m">&gt;</span><span class="tx">com.sun.faces.*</span><span
 class="m">&lt;/</span><span class="t">bridge:excluded-attribute</span><span
 class="m">&gt;</span></tt> </div>
</div>
<div><tt><span class="b">&nbsp;</span> <span class="m">&lt;/</span><span
 class="t">bridge:excluded-attributes</span><span class="m">&gt;</span></tt></div>
</div>
</div>
<div><tt><span class="b"></span><span class="m">&lt;/</span><span
 class="t">application-extension</span></tt><span class="m"><tt>&gt;</tt><br>
<br>
Save the file back into the jar file and rerun.&nbsp; You should now be
fine. <br>
<br>
Note:&nbsp; what you are removing is an extension recognized by the bridge
that tells the bridge it shouldn't include any com.sun.faces.*
attributes in the bridge managed request scope.&nbsp; I think its okay for
this not to be there (won't break the bridge/faces)&nbsp; however if you
want to be safe -- add the following to your portlet section in your
portlet.xml:<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &lt;init-param&gt;<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
&lt;name&gt;javax.portlet.faces.excludedRequestAttributes&lt;/name&gt;<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
&lt;value&gt;com.sun.faces.*&lt;/value&gt;<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &lt;/init-param&gt;<br>
</span></div>
</div>
<br>
-Mike-<br>
<br>
souravm wrote:
<blockquote
 cite="mid5FDD79D8731F4A4B87487A5A85327B8201543ADFF7@BLRKECMBX03.ad.infosys.com"
 type="cite">
  <pre wrap="">Just forwarding the message from user group.

-----Original Message-----
From: souravm [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:SOURAVM@infosys.com">mailto:SOURAVM@infosys.com</a>]
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 5:00 PM
To: MyFaces Discussion
Subject: RE: Myfaces Portlet does not work when a bean is stored in Requestscope...

JBoss Portal Server works fine with JSF 1.2.

The problem starts when I add the portlet-bridge-api-1.0.0-alpha-2.jar and portlet-bridge-impl-1.0.0-alpha-2.jar.

It gives error while parsing the faces-config.xml file in Manifest folder of portlet-bridge-impl-1.0.0-alpha-2.jar.
It says Parse Error at line 20 column 14: Document is invalid: no grammar found.

Regards,
Sourav

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott O'Bryan [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:darkarena@gmail.com">mailto:darkarena@gmail.com</a>]
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 4:15 PM
To: MyFaces Discussion
Subject: Re: Myfaces Portlet does not work when a bean is stored in Requestscope...

I would be surprised if JBoss didn't have JSF built in.  Since the RI is
under development, there is no real good documentation.  On the wiki I
have a page which outlines getting Pluto installed in Tomcat6,
presumably you could use the RI or MyFaces with that.

Scott

souravm wrote:
  </pre>
  <blockquote type="cite">
    <pre wrap="">Hi Scott,

Thanks for the list.

Is there any good documentation available anywhere to help starting with My faces JSF 1.2
and the Portlet Bridge ?

I was trying to experiment with them. But at a first step itself I'm getting problem once
we put the respective jars in the jboss server. The server is not starting up.

Regards,
Sourav

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott O'Bryan [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:darkarena@gmail.com">mailto:darkarena@gmail.com</a>]
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 2:45 PM
To: MyFaces Discussion
Subject: Re: Myfaces Portlet does not work when a bean is stored in Requestscope...

A quick list of items that will be addressed as part of 301 in JSF 1.2
over other bridges are:

1. Better thought through request scope
2. Extendible GenericFacesPortlet allowing custom behavior and mixture
of portlet/jsf generated content while still being able to use the bridge
3. Much better thought out implementation of the ExternalContext - The
spec amends what is in JSF 1.2 where appropriate.
4. EL Resolvers for portlet specific objects
5. Support for "Bridge Optional" deployments where if you have an
application that works both as a portlet AND a servlet, the bridge jars
are only needed at compile time
6. Explicit support for @PreDestroy and @PostCreate annotations which
are not supported with in JSR-168
7. Support for JSR-286 eventing, and resource requests that can be used
to open up AJAX.
8. Support for *inline* content without the verbatim tag.  This is a 1.2
feature that didn't work when run from most bridges unless they were
integrated into the JSF implementation.
.
And many many more features.  :)

Scott

Scott O'Bryan wrote:

    </pre>
    <blockquote type="cite">
      <pre wrap="">souravm wrote:

      </pre>
      <blockquote type="cite">
        <pre wrap="">Hi Scott,

Thanks again for clearing some of the basic points.

For the better future reference purpose here I try to summarize our
discussion/debate points.

1. Issue # 1 - How to handle initial Portlet request which has
request parameters.

Yes I do agree with you that " Portals, according to Portlet
1.0 spec make an initial call to a portlet through a render
request.". In the same context, I am also pretty much ok to go by
your statement " you should do as little in your render request as
you can, but no less ".

However, if this is the model to be followed, it is an absolute need
that the original http request parameters should be made available in
Render request. Only then a specific application context can utilize
this model efficiently and decide, given a situation, what is the
minimal processing has to be done in the initial render request.


        </pre>
      </blockquote>
      <pre wrap="">Actually this is not the case.  At least not as far as the Portal
people I've talked to are concerned.  For a given render request, any
parameters added to that render url WILL be available to the render
request.  This means that if, in your example, you created a
RenderRequest instead of an action, your parameter would be
available.  Portals rely on the action adding their own render
parameters in an action request via the ActionResponse.

      </pre>
      <blockquote type="cite">
        <pre wrap="">Even, if I revisit the thought process I went through to address
my
specific scenario, it is the unavailability of original request
parameter in Render request for which I'm trying to do a work around.
a) JBoss Portal Server by default always sends a Render Request (as
it is in Portal spec) as initial call to a Portlet. But the original
request parameters are not available in Render request. So the bridge
did not work automatically.


        </pre>
      </blockquote>
      <pre wrap="">They should be...  Any parameters added to the RenderURL should be
available to the rest of the render request.  Initially portals don't
have any, that's true, but if you have a render url with some
parameters on it, they will be available.

      </pre>
      <blockquote type="cite">
        <pre wrap="">b) Hence, I decided to use Action Request as initial call (JBoss
Portal server gives me a way to achieve that).
c) Now, since MyFacesGenericPortlet, for the initial call does not
execute other phases of JSF except render phase (which is, I accept
that, based on Portlet spec), calling Action Request does not solve
my issue.
d) So finally, as you suggested, I need to extend the processAction()
method of MyFacesGenericPortlet, to add some code which can store the
map of original http request parameter and the same can be accessed
in Render Request.

It is good that, now pretty much everyone agrees that Request
Attribute needs to be preserved. But, in my view, ideally it should
not be part of JSR 301. Rather it should be part of next Portal spec.
In that case, there won't be any need at all for supporting Action
Request as initial Portlet call. This will solve the root problem.
However, surely for the time being supporting Action Request at
initial Portlet call in JSR 301 would surely make JSF-Portlet
people's life easier.



        </pre>
      </blockquote>
      <pre wrap="">This won't happen because it's against the design they used for
portals and DOES NOT work with the eventing model.  Seriously I would
give up on it because the industry as a whole seems to be stacked up
against you on this one.  :)  In short, parameters added to a
RenderURL will be available during render.  Parameters added during
Event or Action requests will not be, you'll have to explicitly set
them on the response.  For what it's worth, nothing is stopping you
from doing this yourself.

      </pre>
      <blockquote type="cite">
        <pre wrap="">2. Issue # 2 - In portal environment, persistence of managed bean,
which is defined as to be in request scope, in current Action-&gt;Render
sequence.

I see your point that the managed beans in request scope need to be
stored not only in current Action-&gt;Render sequence but also for
future direct Render Request for the Portlet.

Also I understand that, currently neither JSF spec nor Portal spec
dictates that whose responsibility is ensure this requirement.

In this context, my 2 cents would be -
a) Probably JSR 301 is the right place to enforce it, as this is
about JSF portlets.
b) I agree with you that given this overall requirement " most
efficient use on this is for the request attributes to follow the
same lifecycle as the render parameters unless they are excluded. "


        </pre>
      </blockquote>
      <pre wrap="">301 enforces that request attributes are preserved between action
and
render.  It's unfortunate that JSR-168 did not allow this to be
consistent at the container level which is why we decided the bridge
should make it consistent so that all JSF applications could depend on
the same behavior.

      </pre>
      <blockquote type="cite">
        <pre wrap="">To answer your question about moving to JSF 2.0, currently the
decision is to stick to JSF 1.1 (with facelets for templating) till
the JSF 2.0 gets matured enough to use in a production scenario. Can
you please let me know any feature of JSF 2.0 which can resolve above
problems out of the box ?


        </pre>
      </blockquote>
      <pre wrap="">Sorry, the JSR-301 bridge has 2 specs right now.  One for Portlet
1.0
and JSF 1.2 and the other for Portlet 2.0 and JSF 1.2.  JSF 2.0 will
be covered by future specs but should address some of the wierdness
that was present in JSF 1.2 because the portal scenarios were not
properly explored.

The JSR-301 Spec lead is on the JSF 2.0 Expert Group so he's ensuring
some of the insanity won't be there in the next release...  :)  That
said though, upgrading to JSF 1.2 would allow you to use the new
bridge.  It's been out for a while and is pretty stable, the only
issue is that you must use a J2EE 5 container.

      </pre>
      <blockquote type="cite">
        <pre wrap="">However, I'll surely go through the JSR 301 spec and let me know
my
comments.


        </pre>
      </blockquote>
      <pre wrap="">Very cool, that would be very helpful.  There is a public draft for
the Portlet 1.0 bridge.  You might also want to look through JSR-286
(Portlet 2.0) spec to see what the new portlet spec is going to look
like.

Scott

      </pre>
      <blockquote type="cite">
        <pre wrap="">Regards,
Sourav

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott O'Bryan [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:darkarena@gmail.com">mailto:darkarena@gmail.com</a>]
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2008 3:57 PM
To: MyFaces Discussion
Subject: Re: Myfaces Portlet does not work when a bean is stored in
Requestscope...

Eeks I wish these would have been seperate, this is going to be a long
response and not be as easily referenceable in the archives.

souravm wrote:


        </pre>
        <blockquote type="cite">
          <pre wrap="">Hi Scott,

Thanks for the detailed answer/explanation. They were really helpful
to verify my understanding and also enriching the same.

My consolidated response to your last 2 mails are embedded below.

Regards,
Sourav

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott O'Bryan [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:darkarena@gmail.com">mailto:darkarena@gmail.com</a>]
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2008 12:27 PM
To: MyFaces Discussion
Subject: Re: Myfaces Portlet does not work when a bean is stored in
Requestscope ...

Souravm,

Just a clairification, the request bean you have, is it not getting
preserved between a single Action-&gt;Render or is it just not getting
preserved in subsequent renders?

&lt;Sourav&gt;

It does not get preserved in single Action-&gt;Render.

I'm not sure
- Whether this should be responsibility of the Portal server to
preserve the bean within the same request scope when the bean is
declared to be of request scope.
- Or it is responsibility of the bridge



          </pre>
        </blockquote>
        <pre wrap="">Currently is it nobodies responsibility.  I would certainly be
interested in enforcing consistency here at the bridge level.  All I'm
saying is that in JSF, this isn't defined at all.  In Portlet 1.0 it's
not defined either.  So today, it works as it works.


        </pre>
        <blockquote type="cite">
          <pre wrap="">If it is the responsibility of the bridge, then my take is the
root
cause of this problem again goes back the issue#1 (replicating
parameters/attributes from ActionRequest to RenderRequest).



          </pre>
        </blockquote>
        <pre wrap="">Your first issue and this one are two COMPLETLY different things..
Attributes are attributes and parameters are parameters.    Why?
Request attributes in a portal env last though the current request while
request parameters last through the current request and subsequent
non-direct render requests.


        </pre>
        <blockquote type="cite">
          <pre wrap="">The entire JSF lifecycle execution (except render) happens within
processAction() method which runs with the ActionRequest. So the
bean creation, execution of bean's methods (which in turn populate
the result to be displayed in the resultant response page created in
render phase) also happen within this scope. So if the bean in its
latest state needs to be stored and used in the render phase the
bean has to be stored either in session (which works fine in case of
session scoped bean) or it has to be explicitly set in RenderRequest.



          </pre>
        </blockquote>
        <pre wrap="">This is totally incorrect actually.  First off, there is nothing
in JSF
which says the Lifecycle.execute has to happen during an action
request.  Quite the contrary it CAN'T.  Portals, according to Portlet
1.0 spec make an initial call to a portlet through a render request.
This means that, at the very least, the initial call into the execute
must be a render request.  When you start adding usecases for Portlet
2.0, you cannot tie specific pieces of a lifecycle to specific lifecycle
phases.  That said, I don't disagree that Request Attributes should be
preserved.  That's how it was spec'd in JSR-301 because pretty much
everyone agrees with you.  Pre-JSR-301 beidges did not address this
usecase though.  It was not a requirement of JSF and the spec simply
says that the maps reflect what is currently stored on the request.

As such, if you take an attribute, store it on the native Request
object, and then in the render try to get it, you'll find your portal is
not preseving that attribute.


        </pre>
        <blockquote type="cite">
          <pre wrap="">&lt;/Sourav&gt;



          </pre>
        </blockquote>
        <blockquote type="cite">
          <pre wrap="">The first issue, in bridges before JSR-301 is actually a portal
issue.
The JSR specification does not say whether request attributes set in
the
action request have to be available in the render request.  IMO, if
they
are not, request attributes are basically pointless.  Pre-JSR 301
bridges were ignorant of this fact and just did what the portal did.
The JSR-301 bridge DOES define this behavior and I believe he have
special code to handle these issues.  This code is NOT in the MyFaces
1.1 bridge.

&lt;Sourav&gt;

I see your point.

However, going back to the comment you made in last mail (whether
this is a valid usecase or not, or should this scenario has to be
handled through Render URL), I don't think using a RenderURL is a
right solution. This is because following reasons -

a) RenderURLs are to be directly called only when there is no
processing needs to be done for a Portlet, only the previous view
has to be rendered. In my understanding, this is to be used
especially for the pages with multiple portlets. This ensures that
in case one Portlet sends an ActionRequest, all other portlets in
the same page does not need to go through the action processing for
the previous request (instead they can just repeat the render phase
of Portlet Lifecycle with the result from previous action).



          </pre>
        </blockquote>
        <pre wrap="">You are partially correct.  ProcessAction is designed to be used
in
response to expensive processing operations which are usually caused by
form submissions.  Portal developers realized that a person will only
ever interact with one portlet at a time and that, when a person does
interact with a portlet, they have access to things (like the request
input stream), that other portlets do not.

Where you are wrong is that this HAS to be the case.  Indeed during the
initial render of a portlet (which is always a render request) this is
NOT the case, because some processing has to be done.  The correct way
to think about it is that you should do as little in your render request
as you can, but no less.

So why do I think the Render URL is appropriate here?  Let's say you had
a normal (non-JBOSS) search portlet.  In order to execute it, you would
need an initial screen (which could absolutely do some processing).  If
this initial screen was a JSF application, JSF would handle all the
binding and assignment to the backing beans and everything would work.


        </pre>
        <blockquote type="cite">
          <pre wrap="">b) Secondly, not sure how valid is the assumption that the first
request to a Portlet will always be Render Request. Even during
first time bringing up the portlet in a page there may be need of
doing some processing based on the Portlet Preference which ideally
should be handled in processAction() phase of Portlet lifecycle. So
ideally this assumption should be relooked at.\



          </pre>
        </blockquote>
        <pre wrap="">Again, according to the Portlet 1.0 specification, this CANNOT
happen.
The initial request in a portlet is ALWAYS a render request.  It's
spec'd that way.  Apparently JBoss has added some extensions to change
that, but it does not fit with JSR-168.


        </pre>
        <blockquote type="cite">
          <pre wrap="">I surely feel this usecase should be supported (standard
struts-portlet bridges support it). I'll really appreciate if you
can discuss this in next JSR 301 meeting.



          </pre>
        </blockquote>
        <pre wrap="">I will, I'll get it added to the agenda..


        </pre>
        <blockquote type="cite">
          <pre wrap="">&lt;/Sourav&gt;

As for the second issue, this is also something that is now handled by
JSR-301, but the original attempt at JSF to define a bridge did NOT
make
this a requirement.  In order to maintain compatibility with existing
applications, the 301 bridge will preserve request attributes on
subsequent "non-direct" render requests, but we also had to add a
way to
disable this functionality for beans that did not expect to be
preserved.

&lt;Sourav&gt;

I've not really tested preserving the request for subsequent
non-direct render request. As I mentioned above, I found problem
even in storing the same bean within the single Action-&gt;Render
sequence.

However, my view is, if request parameters (in a managed bean) needs
to be stored for subsequent render requests, it crosses the boundary
of a single http request. Then the managed bean has to be scoped at
session level.

&lt;/Sourav&gt;



          </pre>
        </blockquote>
        <pre wrap="">Yeah, I know.  This went back and forth as well.  However, with
JSF this
doesn't make sense.  Let's say you have 2 JSF portlets.  Portlet #1 has
a search box.  You type in a value into the search box and JSF stores
the value into a request scoped bean and displays the results.  You then
interact with another portlet.  When your page refreshes, the item you
were searching for is no longer there.  We've gone though quite a few
iterations on this and the most efficient use on this is for the request
attributes to follow the same lifecycle as the render parameters unless
they are excluded.  The problem with storing everything on the session
is that it never goes away and this will eat up tons of memory.  If your
application explicitly handled this storing and removing of objects,
that's one thing.  But JSF does not allow you to easily remove a managed
bean from a scope.


        </pre>
        <blockquote type="cite">
          <pre wrap="">For issue #1, I think it would probably be appropriate to add
some code
to fix this.  What it would entail is storing the RequestMap in a
global
map with a key that you would set as a render parameter.  You'll
need to
be careful to clean up anything that might "leak".

&lt;Sourav&gt;

I agree with you on this. I'm planning to create this map in
actionProcess() method in case the VIEW_ID request parameter is null
(the VIEW_ID null is the flag to identify that it is a non-JSF
action request).

&lt;/Sourav&gt;

For issue #2, existing portlet applications in the 1.1 space DEPEND on
this behavior.  Changing it would break those applications.  We
chose to
break it for JSR-301 because we though it more appropriate to preserve
these parameters, but we added several mechanisms (one annotation based
and one FacesConfig based) to allow these attributes to be easily
excluded.

&lt;Sourav&gt;

I see your point. Hope JSR 301 and JSR 286 together can bring more
predictable and intuitive behavior for Portal-JSF combination.

&lt;/Sourav&gt;



          </pre>
        </blockquote>
        <pre wrap="">Well it's shaping up to be interesting.  More predictable, I doubt
it.
What 286 will do is add a bunch of functionality, like the ability to
support AJAX in a standardized fashion.

Is there any reason you can't move to JSF 1.2?  I would be very
interested in your opinions of the JSR-301 bridge which should run on
Portlet 1.0 and JSF1.2 just fine.  The spec's are not yet final and so
there is still time to influence some of the usecases or, at the very
least, get your head around what will be the Java standard soon.

In the mean time, I'll ask the EG if we need to support an initial
request being an action request.  I know we've got some JBOSS guys on
the Expert Group so we may be able to get them to comment.  For now
though, try generating a render url and I think you'll find that the
bridge will let it work.


        </pre>
        <blockquote type="cite">
          <pre wrap="">Hope that helps,
  Scott

souravm wrote:



          </pre>
          <blockquote type="cite">
            <pre wrap="">Hi All,

I have a simple JSF application exposed as Portlet (in JBoss Portal
Server 2.6.4) using MyFacesGenericPortlet. The JSF application has
a managed bean with Request scope.

The application works perfectly when it is run outside Portal
environment.

But within Portal environment it does not work as the Manages Bean,
though gets initiated and do all the processing properly during the
initial lifecycle phases, during the render phase it further gets
initiated and the previous instance gets lost.

The same works perfectly fine in Portal environment when the
Managed Bean is declared in session scope.

Not sure whether this is the problem of MyFacesGenericPortlet or
the Portal Server where it is running. Or is it by design ?

Any insight/viewpoint on this would be highly appreciated.

Regards,
Sourav

**************** CAUTION - Disclaimer *****************
This e-mail contains PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
intended solely for the use of the addressee(s). If you are not the
intended recipient, please notify the sender by e-mail and delete
the original message. Further, you are not to copy, disclose, or
distribute this e-mail or its contents to any other person and any
such actions are unlawful. This e-mail may contain viruses. Infosys
has taken every reasonable precaution to minimize this risk, but is
not liable for any damage you may sustain as a result of any virus
in this e-mail. You should carry out your own virus checks before
opening the e-mail or attachment. Infosys reserves the right to
monitor and review the content of all messages sent to or from this
e-mail address. Messages sent to or from this e-mail address may be
stored on the Infosys e-mail system.
***INFOSYS******** End of Disclaimer ********INFOSYS***




            </pre>
          </blockquote>
        </blockquote>
      </blockquote>
    </blockquote>
    <pre wrap="">
    </pre>
  </blockquote>
  <pre wrap=""><!---->
  </pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>

Mime
View raw message