[jsr-314-open] Adding a description field to the JavaScript event payload

[Andy Schwartz]

Yep, agree with Kito and Dan that we need to do whatever we can to 
reduce confusion when problems like this arise, so happy to see a more 
detailed error description made available.  (Not sure that we need a 
description field for "events" - but definitely for errors.)

On a related note... So have we started to identify common problems that 
might lead to client-side errors such as the "MalformedXML" error?  Are 
there certain issues/approaches that application developers should be 
aware of in order to avoid running into such errors?  Are there some 
best practices that we should recommending to reduce the chance that 
such errors will be seen?  If so, it would be good to collect this 
knowledge and make it available to our users.

Or are we seeing MalformedXML errors in cases where the application 
developer has done everything right, but something is going wrong at the 
framework/implementation/browser level?

Kito -

Were you able to track down the source of the MalformedXML error that 
hit during your demo?


Andy

Jim Driscoll wrote:

> I'd like to propose that we add a freeform text description field to 
> the JavaScript event and error payload.
>
> This would allow for user readable descriptions to go along with 
> errors like the infamous "MalformedXML" error.
>
> I think this could fit into an errata, since:
> 1) It's got no backward incompatibility impact.
> 2) It's a single line in the spec.
> 3) It's (almost) trivial to implement.
>
> and most importantly:
> 4) We really should have had this in there in the first place, and 
> it's omission was really more of an oversight than a deliberate choice.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> I've opened up spec issue 570 to track this:
> https://javaserverfaces-spec-public.dev.java.net/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=570 
>
>
> And yes, I made it a P1.
>
> Jim