myfaces-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Werner Punz <>
Subject Re: dynamic styles in IE for MyFaces AJAX?
Date Mon, 13 Jul 2009 10:33:52 GMT
Ganesh schrieb:
> Hi,
> My problem with the attributes and eval sections of the xhr response (as 
> well as with insert and delete) is that the JSR-314 specs jsdocs define 
> them, but Mojarra 2.0 doesn't use them. Mojarra 2.0 sends an 
> eval/attributes/insert/delete/extensions xhr response under *no* 
> circumstances. Also the main spec PDF document doesn't mention them at 
> all. If you read the PDF, you'd think, only the updates section of the 
> xhr response is relevant. Also, Mojarras implemetation of 
> eval/attributes/insert/delete is rudimentary. I frequently wondered why 
> they defined this at all.
> Do we want to have identical xml data exchange in MyFaces 2.0 xhr as in 
> Mojarra 2.0? Will the users rely on the XML data format? The spec only 
> defines the syntax of the XMLSchema, so we are spec compliant, even if 
> we send the scripts and styles via the eval or extensions (or other) 
> sections. On the other hand I was trying to maintain Mojarra 
> compatibility on the transport layer and until now and I'm using the 
> MyFaces script togther with Mojarra 2.0 successfully. Please comment on 
> this: Do we want 100% compatibility on the xhr transport layer between 
> Mojarra 2.0 and MyFaces 2.0 or do we want to enhance transport beyond 
> Mojarra along the lines the specs draw?
> If we decide for the second (enhance transport):
> Why would you put <script>...</script> inside the attributes section? 
> The spec says it is used to >>update the DOM element attribute value 
> (whose name matches attribute name), with attribute value<<. I can't see 
> in which way this is connected to replacing scripts.
> Best regards,
> Ganesh

Well I have been sending a commend regarding the eval/ upate etc... to 
the comments mailing list I hope it will be read (my last mail regarding 
auto eval obviously again was read by that /dev/null guy since I did not 
get any answer).

My personal guess is lets wait if we get a response before doing further 
discussions. I have somewhat mixed feelings about it as well.

But the question also arises do we really break compatbility on protocol 
level, I dont think so, but we clearly break it on component level, but 
only if it is used, so I´d rather have this extension being implemented 
on both implementations before going alone in this regard.

I am not very eager to allow component authors behavior which works on 
myfaces alone on this level, but on the other hand I think the 
implementation is clearly broken and makes life miserable for the 
components authors if we dont cover this corner case.

View raw message