I've created issue 612 to track the JSF half of this issue... if someone more able to describe the needed changes than myself would file the EL half, that would be great. Thanks.



On Tue, 2009-08-18 at 13:31 -0700, Ed Burns wrote:
>>>>> 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?