[jsr-314-open] Adding handling of CDATA blocks in ResponseWriter

[Jim Driscoll]

That's added in the codebase (as of yesterday), and as you mention, 
those methods had to be added in ResponseWriterWrapper as well.

Jim

On 4/7/09 5:49 AM, Martin Marinschek wrote:
> 2) Add two new menthods, startCDATA() and endCDATA() to ResponseWriter.
>
> yes, please!
>
> regards,
>
> Martin
>
> P.S.: do we already have a ResponseWriterWrapper?
>
> regards,
>
> Martin
>
> On 4/4/09, Kito Mann<kito.mann at virtua.com>  wrote:
>> On Apr 3, 2009, at 2:53 PM, Pete Muir<pmuir at REDHAT.COM>  wrote:
>>
>>> On 2 Apr 2009, at 20:50, Jim Driscoll wrote:
>>>
>>>> Greetings EG memebers.
>>>>
>>>> I have an implementation problem, and the cleanest, most effective
>>>> solution is a change in the API, so I'm sending you this email.
>>>>
>>>> The problem:
>>>>
>>>> The current javax.faces.context.ResponseWriter class is aware of
>>>> XML structure, in that it has methods for writing things like
>>>> Elements, Comments, and Attributes.  However, CDATA blocks are
>>>> currently not handled by the API defined there.
>>>>
>>>> The RI previous to this release got around this problem by
>>>> overloading the startElement and endElement method semantics - if
>>>> you passed a tag name of "CDATA", then it would start a CDATA block.
>>>>
>>>> Since nothing in the public API used CDATA, this worked fine.
>>>>
>>>> Now, for PartialRequests, CDATA blocks are used by the API.
>>>>
>>>> You cannot embed CDATA blocks within CDATA blocks, so both the API
>>>> and the Impl need to be aware of when CDATA blocks happen, and they
>>>> need to coordinate their actions.
>>>>
>>>> This means that we need to update ResponseWriter to be aware of
>>>> CDATA blocks.
>>>>
>>>> There are two ways we can go about doing this:
>>>>
>>>> 1) Standardize the existing behavior of the implementation, so that
>>>> startElement("CDATA", component) and endElement("CDATA") start and
>>>> end CDATA blocks.
>>>>
>>>> or
>>>>
>>>> 2) Add two new menthods, startCDATA() and endCDATA() to
>>>> ResponseWriter.
>>> I strongly prefer this approach, it doesn't rely on magic.
>> +1
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I marginally favor the first approach, mostly since it's not a
>>>> common need, it's less work, and it doesn't add two new methods
>>>> that almost noone will use.  It's also the way that the RI
>>>> currently uses, which hasn't seemed to cause any issues.  (It also
>>>> requires less RI work, so that may be biasing me, though that's
>>>> almost never a reason to chose a public API.)
>>>>
>>>> Ryan somewhat favors the second approach, since it's cleaner,
>>>> architecturally, to separate out the start and stop of the cdata.
>>>>
>>>> But in the end, we're open to which ever way the consensus of the
>>>> EG goes.
>>>>
>>>> Please reply by COB Monday on this issue, if you have an opinion.
>>>> We need to wrap this up quickly, we're under a great deal of time
>>>> pressure.
>>>>
>>>> Jim
>>> --
>>> Pete Muir
>>> http://www.seamframework.org
>>> http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Pete
>>
>
>