[jsr-314-open-mirror] [jsr-314-open] [806] Simplify PostRestoreStateEvent delivery requirements

[Leonardo Uribe]

Hi

2010/6/10 Andy Schwartz <andy.schwartz at oracle.com>

> Gang -
>
> I recently logged the following spec issue:
>
> https://javaserverfaces-spec-public.dev.java.net/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=806
>
> Short summary of the problem for those who don't want to read through the
> gory details:
>
> The specification is currently a bit too specific about when
> PostRestoreStateEvents should be delivered.  The only requirement should be
> that these events are delivered after the view has been restored, but before
> we move out of the restore view phase.  For example, a reasonable
> implementation would be to deliver these events in the Lifecycle
> implementation, after the state manager has returned the restored view.
>  However, the spec does not currently allow this - eg. the spec requires
> that UIViewRoot.processRestoreState() delivers these events.
>
> Of course, UIViewRoot.processRestoreState isn't always called (only used
> for full state saving), which means that implementations end up having to
> duplicate this logic elsewhere, such as in whatever state manager is used
> for partial state saving.  This has further fallout for custom state
> managers - ie. custom state managers that do not call processRestoreState()
> must duplicate the event delivery logic yet again.
>
> This is much more complicated than necessary.  My recommendation is that we
> simplify the requirements such that implementations are free to deal with
> PostRestoreStateEvent delivery in a saner way.  For example, implementations
> should be able to deliver these events once at the end of the restore view
> phase (and not be required to implement this logic in
> UIViewRoot.processRestoreState()).
>
> I suspect that this small spec change will lead to simpler code in Mojarra
> (definitely) and MyFaces (probably, though I haven't looked at the code).
>
> Does anyone have concerns about this proposal?
>
> Martin, Leonardo -
>
> Could you guys comment on whether this change would be acceptable to
> MyFaces?
>
>
I think this one has enough importance to be included on myfaces core 2.0.1.
I'll check it and commit it on myfaces soon.

regards,

Leonardo Uribe


> Andy
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/jsr-314-open-mirror/attachments/20100610/78f76849/attachment-0002.html