[jsr-314-open-mirror] [jsr-314-open] JSF 2.1 Omnibus reply
Blake Sullivan
blake.sullivan at oracle.com
Wed Oct 27 18:49:32 EDT 2010
Ed,
/1. some kind of root element on which namespaces are declared
/
Why does this have to be a root element? We shouldn't care where the
namespaces are declared.
/2. doing what Cay suggests and just have "html" as the root
element, but
have it be the new html renderer that handles the "html" element
rendering.
/
How does adding a new <h:html> tag have any advantage over having the
page author use a real <html> tag? If it doesn't, then there is no
reason to add more tags.
/3. saying that your view is actually an XHTML view, in which case you
have <html> as the root element with the XHTML namespace as the
non-prefixed namespace.
/
I don't understand. What do you mean by an "XHTML view"? A page that
generates XHTML content? A Facelets page that contains XHTML markup?
If it is the second of these, why do we care how and where they have
specified their namespace as long as they have valid XML?
/MM> - get/putTransient should be on UIComponent, or
TransientStateHelper
MM> needs to be exposed
I strongly feel we should expose TransientStateHelper, not put these
methods on UIComponent./
And
This is completely analogous to the original design with StateHelper().
So, in addition to Martin's assertion about the API design, it is
consistent with our existing patterns.
I'm not convinced {get/put}Transient is better. If you're going to
quibble with that, why not quibble with getStateHelper() as well?
I didn't realize that pushing back on needlessly adding public apis to a
specification criticized for being bloated, but then I'm also guilty of
commenting late so why stop now.
Is your proposal that we add getTransientStateHelper() on UIComponent
and then have the subclasses modify the state using the StateHelper
methods? Why is that better than get/setTransient()? Is the only
justification that it is similar to getStateHelper()? And, yeah, I have
several quibbles with getStateHelper().
-- Blake Sullivan
On 10/26/10 1:13 PM, Ed Burns wrote:
> With this email, I'll try to ensure that all loose ends for JSF 2.1 are
> tied up.
>
> MANY THANKS to JBoss for the email archive. During the JCP award
> ceremony at JavaOne, I winced every time an award was announced for a
> category where JBoss was a finalist and did not get the award.
>
> SECTION: [869-CSRF] [1] Roger is rolling back this entire spec issue. If the
> feedback were delivered earlier, this rollback might have been avoided
> SECTION: [490-XmlViews] [2] Ed removed Chapter 11 and the faces-view
> schema from the spec.
>
> SUBSECTION: What are we doing with<facelets-processing>?
>
> Yes, specifying this information in a faces-config.xml does pre-suppose
> some sort of jar-local setting. That was Andy's original intent.
> However, we don't have the spec language for this yet, and I think it is
> safe to introduce jar-local settings in a future specification release.
>
> LU> 1. Fix ResourceResolver
> LU> 2. Fix suffix definition for vdls
> LU> 3. Fix specific suffix handling for facelets vdl
>
> What are we doing with suffix/extension configuration:
>
> AS> - Enhance the DEFAULT_FACELETS_SUFFIX context parameter to allow it
> AS> to support multiple values + change the default value to ".xhtml
> AS> .view.xml". Or...
>
> AS> - Specify a default value for the FACELETS_VIEW_MAPPINGS context
> AS> parameter.
>
> AS> Either of these seem acceptable to me.
>
> EB> I am reluctant to bind .view.xml to be "Facelets". Yes, right now
> EB> Mojarra is using the Facelets VDL impl to process .view.xml but I'd
> EB> rather leave the DEFAULT_FACELETS_SUFFIX and FACELET_VIEW_MAPPINGS
> EB> unchanged for 2.1. Note that I did change the value of
> EB> ViewHandler.DEFAULT_SUFFIX to be ".xhtml .view.xml .jsp".
>
> SUBSECTION: derived view id changes
>
> LU> It seems, but note the algorithm required to deriveViewId() should
> LU> call ResourceResolver to check for resources, specially when suffix
> LU> mapping is used, so if it is necessary to change section 7.5.2 for
> LU> each problem, it could be good to do both changes at once.
>
> What changes are necessary to 7.5.2?
>
> LU> <faces-config> tag like renderkit does:
> LU>
> LU> <view-declaration-language>
> LU>
> LU> <view-declaration-language-id>javax.faces.Jsp</view-declaration-language-id>
> LU>
> LU> <view-declaration-language-class>my.bizarre.vdl.WrapperForJspOnly</view-declaration-language-class>
> LU> </view-declaration-language>
> LU>
> LU> and VDL prefix/suffix mapping inside<faces-config-extension> tag.
>
> I think this is pushing it for 490. We have to move this part to 2.2.
>
> AS> 1. The ViewHandler.getViewDeclarationLanguage() should be clear that
> AS> it expects "derived" view ids.
>
> Your patch to 893 does this.
>
> AS> 2. We need some way to safely derive view ids from the restore view
> AS> phase. This means that we either need to be able to use the
> AS> existing ViewHandler.deriveViewId() without triggering TCK failures,
> AS> or we need a new method on ViewHandler that performs the same
> AS> functionality as deriveViewId() without requiring that the derived
> AS> view id passes the existence check.
>
> Your patch to 893 does this.
>
> AS> 3. We need a method on ViewDeclarationLanguage for testing view
> AS> existence, eg. viewExists(). We should use this instead of directly
> AS> calling ExternalContext.getResource() when checking to see whether a
> AS> viewId corresponds to a physical view.
>
> Your patch to 893 does this.
>
> AS> 4. We need some way to wrap a specific VDL (eg. the JSP VDL). The
> AS> minimal solution would be to introduce a VDL id (eg.
> AS> ViewDeclarationLanguage.getId()) and define standard ids for the JSP
> AS> and Facelets VDLs.
>
> I'm not opposed, but can you clearly articulate, in one or two
> sentences, why we need this?
>
> We are not doing anything along the lines of
> ViewDeclarationLanguage.getConfiguredExtensions() in 2.1.
>
> SUBSECTION: XML syntax
>
> CH> A user could actually nominate http://java.sun.com/jsf/html as the
> CH> namespace without a prefix and prefix the html tags--don't know if
> CH> that's attractive to anyone.
>
> Yes, they could, but I've not seen any books or articles that do it that
> way. I assert that you can't have a proper XML Faces view without having
> exactly one of the following
>
> 1. some kind of root element on which namespaces are declared
>
> 2. doing what Cay suggests and just have "html" as the root element, but
> have it be the new html renderer that handles the "html" element
> rendering.
>
> 3. saying that your view is actually an XHTML view, in which case you
> have<html> as the root element with the XHTML namespace as the
> non-prefixed namespace.
>
> SECTION: [658-PartialViewContextAPI]
>
> I don't think this fits in the changelog, so we have to move it to 2.2
>
> SECTION: [893-UIRepeat:begin:end]
> SECTION: [888-ConversionModel]
> SECTION: [754-cc:attributes]
> SECTION: [884,885,886,887-ResourceHandling]
>
> Handle in 2.2.
>
> SECTION: [696-SUPPRESS_XML_DECL]
>
> Blake really wants it out. I still think it's useful. I'll give in to
> Blake in this one and remove it. The way to suppress the XML DECL will
> be to use<facelets-processing>, though you'll have to also accept the
> other set of options as specified in Appendix A, Table 1-1.
>
> SECTION: [UIData transient] [6] [7]
>
> Summary: I am going to take Andy's first patch from [7] as the basis of
> the spec work.
>
> AS> However, while reviewing the 20101013 API doc for UIComponent, I see
> AS> that access to these transient properties from "outside" of the
> AS> component instance is no longer possible. There are no public
> AS> get/putTransient() methods on UIComponent.
> AS> getTransientStateHelper() is protected. This means that
> AS> arbitrary external access to transient properties is not
> AS> supported. Is this by design?
>
> AS> Also, looking at TransientStateHelper, I see that the property keys
> AS> are declared as Serializable. However, isn't the point that
> AS> these transient properties are per-request and will not be state
> AS> saved? Who is serializing this data? Unless I am missing
> AS> some reason why this transient data is being serialized, we should
> AS> change the type of the property key to Object.
>
> AS> Another thought... The TransientStateHelper extends
> AS> StateHelper. Is this necessary? I would prefer to be
> AS> able to provide an implementation of TransientStateHelper (eg. in
> AS> Trinidad's UIXComponentBase) without also having to implement the
> AS> very extensive StateHelper contract. Can we separate these two?
>
> AS> BTW, if we consider adding back the public get/putTransient()
> AS> methods on UIComponent as Leonardo proposed originally, I kind of
> AS> wonder whether we actually need a public TransientStateHelper
> AS> contract at all. The details of transient state storage could
> AS> be handled internally.
>
> MM> I agree with the points:
>
> MM> - get/putTransient should be on UIComponent, or TransientStateHelper
> MM> needs to be exposed
>
> I strongly feel we shoul expose TransientStateHelper, not put these
> methods on UIComponent.
>
> MM> - no Serializable keys are necessary
>
> MM> But - I am not sure about removing the TransientStateHelper
> MM> contract... It doesn't need to extend from StateHelper, that is true
> MM> - but won't the code look funny if state-saved property handling
> MM> looks different from transient property handling?
>
> Andy's definitive patch is at [7]. Both Andy and Blake favor this patch
> because it does not introduce a top-level TransientStateHelper
> interface.
>
> MM> What I would do:
>
> MM> Double getCalculatedWeight() {
> MM> return (Double) getTransientStateHelper().get(PropertyKeys.weight, false);
> MM> }
> MM> void setCalculatedWeight(Double weight) {
> MM> getTransientStateHelper().put(PropertyKeys.weight, weight);
> MM> }
> MM>
> MM> Could TransientStateHelper not be an alternative implementation of the
> MM> StateHelper interface?
>
> This is completely analogous to the original design with StateHelper().
> So, in addition to Martin's assertion about the API design, it is
> consistent with our existing patterns.
>
> I'm not convinced {get/put}Transient is better. If you're going to
> quibble with that, why not quibble with getStateHelper() as well?
>
> AS> I don't see how adding a new TransientStateHelper contract improves
> AS> this situation. That's not to say that we cannot do this. The
> AS> first patch that I provided leaves TransientStateHelper in place.
> AS> Just seems like added conceptual overhead that might not be
> AS> necessary.
>
> AS> 1. Components storing transient attributes on themselves.
> AS> 2. External classes storing transient attributes on components.
>
> The existing StateHelper only addresses 1. Is it ok to allow transient
> state to be accessed for case 2 without doing the same for non-transient
> state?
>
> B> Since we can always add the TransientStateHelper later if we need it,
> B> we shouldn't have it in the specification for this release.
>
> As an author, I find it easier to explain the difference between
> transient and non-transient state using the current APIs. If one was to
> use getStateHelper() and the other to use direct methods on UIComponent,
> it would be harder to explain.
>
> MM> my concern that stateful and transient component getters/setters look
> MM> different is not relevant to you?
>
> MM> I am just thinking that users might be confused.
>
> Yes. I agree.
>
> MM> yes - or we just make the getTransientStateHelper() a public method.
> MM> Both is possible
>
> SECTION: [537-PrePostValidateEvent]
>
> SPEC> When an instance of this event is passed to
> SPEC> SystemEventListener.processEvent(javax.faces.event.SystemEvent) or
> SPEC> ComponentSystemEventListener.processEvent(
> SPEC> the listener implementation may assume that the source of this
> SPEC> event instance is the UIComponent instance that is that has just
> SPEC> been validated.
>
> SPEC> Note that iterating components such as UIData, and form components
> SPEC> such as UIForm must publish this event after processing their
> SPEC> children nodes in
> SPEC> UIComponent.processValidators(javax.faces.context.FacesContext).
>
> AS> Does this mean that only input, UIData and UIForm components will
> AS> deliver these events?
>
> No, it does not mean that *only* those components will deliver those
> events. It means that in the case of components who are iterating
> components, the event must be published before, or after, the child
> component processing. This is true for any components that have
> children. I will revise the documentation to be as follows.
>
> PostValidateEvent
>
> Components with children must publish this event after processing their
> child nodes in processValidators. This is especially important for
> iterating components such as UIData and form components, such as UIForm.
>
> PreValidateEvent
>
> Components with children must publish this before after processing their
> child nodes in processValidators. This is especially important for
> iterating components such as UIData and form components, such as UIForm.
>
> SECTION: [853-cc:clientBehavior]
>
> DG> I don't see this in the 2.1 spec. I'd be happy to write
> DG> something.
>
> As mentioned in another message, I have committed this.
>
> [1] http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/jsr-314-open-mirror/2010-October/000410.html
>
> [2] http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/jsr-314-open-mirror/2010-October/000412.html
>
> [6] http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/jsr-314-open-mirror/2010-October/000469.html
>
> [7] http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/jsr-314-open-mirror/2010-October/000491.html
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/jsr-314-open-mirror/attachments/20101027/c5649452/attachment-0002.html
More information about the jsr-314-open-mirror
mailing list