>>>>> On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 08:08:31 +0200, Martin Marinschek <mmarinschek@apache.org> said:

MM> Hi Ed,
>> Which I still don't understand.  Can you please explain explicitly?

MM> I sent a mail to Kin-Man that we can't pass parameters from the
MM> framework to the method-expression. So, we can now do:

MM> #{bb.action(myparam)}

MM> to call a method with signature:

MM> public String action(String myparam) {}

MM> but we can not do:

MM> #{bb.valueChangeListener(myparam)}

MM> to call a method with signature:

MM> public void valueChangeListener(ValueChangeEvent ev, String myparam) {}

MM> only with signature:

MM> public void valueChangeListener(String myparam) {}

MM> so what we loose is the ValueChangeEvent, which was provided by the
MM> JSF framework as a parameter to the invoke-call in the
MM> Method-Expression instance (we will only receive the parsed
MM> parameters).

Thanks.  Now I understand your request.

MM> I already got mail by Kin-Man - he said this won't be included, we
MM> are too late.

MM> This effectively means we cannot use the new EL functionality to solve
MM> the problem that was discussed in this thread (using
MM> valueChangeListeners in a dataTable), and therefore, even though we
MM> can get rid of the f:setPropertyActionListener, we would still need an
MM> f:setPropertyValueChangeListener - a pity.

I agree that the feature you request is indeed valid.  Can you please
file it in the uel.dev.java.net issue tracker?

Ed