[jsr-314-open-mirror] [jsr-314-open] 490-XmlViews Processing JSPX files as Facelets

[Leonardo Uribe]

> On 10/6/10 12:01 PM, Leonardo Uribe wrote:
>
>
>
> 2010/10/6 Blake Sullivan <blake.sullivan at oracle.com>
>
>>  On 10/6/10 11:35 AM, Leonardo Uribe wrote:
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> In theory, shouldn't the vdl be responsible to indicate which
>> prefix/suffix pattern is used to identify if a physical viewId should be
>> handled by an specific vdl?.
>>
>> No.  While the VDL may have a preferred extension, the authors should be
>> free to route whatever content they want to the VDL.  For example, in the
>> particular case of running JSPX content through Facelets, .jspx would not be
>> a preferred mapping for Facelets.
>>
>>
> Ok, I see, that is for backward compatibility with apps that uses JSPX
> content for jsp. But in such case, which one is responsible to define such
> mapping?. Note right now it is not possible to create another vdl without
> break RestoreView algorithm. In theory, the ViewDeclarationLanguageFactory
> should do it (I did some attempts on this issue and finally I added some
> methods there).
>
>
2010/10/6 Blake Sullivan <blake.sullivan at oracle.com>

>  If a particular JAR contains .jspx content that it wants to run through
> the facelets engine in a compatibility mode, that JAR would contain the
> mapping in its faces-config.xml and an application using that JAR wouldn't
> have to concern itself with that implementation detail.
>
>
But note this implementation detail is made explicit on the JAR, but the
implementation proposed is just a workaround for facelets vdl. Let's take a
look at how it is described on faces-config.xml

 <faces-config-extension>
   <facelets-processing>
     <file-extension>.jspx</file-extension>
     <process-as>jspx</process-as>
   </facelets-processing>
   <facelets-processing>
     <file-extension>.view.xml</file-extension>
     <process-as>xml</process-as>
   </facelets-processing>
 </faces-config-extension>

>From my point of view it says: "...for facelets vdl, if .jspx extension is
found on the physical resource file, process it as some specific 'mode', and
if .view.xml extension is found on the physical resource file, process it as
xml...".

Does that suggest a vdl can process a file in different "modes"? Maybe yes,
there could be some difference about how should be processed from facelets
vld.

Now suppose the .jspx files are in some directory inside the JAR. How
facelets can found them? ... through a custom
javax.faces.view.facelets.ResourceResolver implementation ... Can we
configure this artifact from faces-config.xml?.... no .... If we configure
ResourceResolver interface that will work? .... no because the algorithm on
RestoreView is very specific on that field and does not take into account
ResourceResolver to find resources.

Things are different if we take as target files inside META-INF/resources
(composite components). No ResourceResolver instance is involved and there
will be no problem from RestoreView algorithm (because those files will not
be used for create views).

In few words, my concern with this one is if this is being solved, why don't
do it in a more standard way for all vdl and solve all those holes in the
spec once for all?

Leonardo Uribe
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/jsr-314-open-mirror/attachments/20101006/6a108850/attachment-0002.html