[jsr-314-open] [AjaxBehaviorEventAttribute] why must it be a literal?

[Roger Kitain]

Ok.  I do recall that discussion.  If we go with this, I'm tracking the 
spec change at :
https://javaserverfaces-spec-public.dev.java.net/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=622

-roger

Andy Schwartz wrote:
> Right.  Behaviors are created and wired into the component tree during 
> tag/handler execution.  The event name is used during this process - 
> ie. is specified when registering the Behavior with the hosting 
> UIComponent.   In theory we could allow the event name to be specified 
> via an EL expression, but the spec would need to be clear that this EL 
> expression would be evaluated immediately during tag/handler execution 
> (as the component tree is built) rather than deferred/re-evaluated 
> during later phases.
>
> So, yes, in many ways this is similar to f:facet's "name" attribute.
>
> Andy
>
> Alexander Smirnov wrote:
>> At least, the literal value would reduce a number of support requests 
>> :-). A lot of people reported about 'rendered' attribute "issue", 
>> there they have a different value of bean property which is bonded to 
>> the 'rendered' attribute, therefore some components are not called 
>> during execution phases.
>> To be serious, behavior works like GUI event handler on client and 
>> server side, hence it has some component functionality and should be 
>> attached to the same event during execute phase as it has been 
>> rendered. The same thing is why 'facet' name could be literal only, I 
>> guess.
>>
>>
>> On 08/21/2009 07:55 AM, Ed Burns wrote:
>>  
>>> Hello team,
>>>
>>> Mojarra impl issue 1143 asserts there is a use case for which allowing
>>> the value of the "event" attribute of<f:ajax>  (and thus for all
>>> behaviors) to be a ValueExpression, at least in the case of composite
>>> components.
>>>
>>> I suspect there's a good reason why we chose to force the value of the
>>> event attribute to be literal, likely security.  However, I want to 
>>> know
>>> why so I can close this bug in an informed manner, or challenge our
>>> decision and possibly broaden the allowable value type for the
>>> attribute.
>>>
>>> Can someone please enlighten me?
>>>
>>> Sincerely,
>>>
>>> Ed
>>>
>>>     
>