7:47 p.m.
On 10/6/10 12:38 PM, Leonardo Uribe wrote:
On 10/6/10 12:01 PM, Leonardo Uribe wrote:
>
>
> 2010/10/6 Blake Sullivan <blake.sullivan(a)oracle.com
> <mailto:blake.sullivan@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(a)oracle.com
<mailto:blake.sullivan@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...".
Yep
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.
Since this is a facelets-specific extension, facelets can do whatever
it
wants with it
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.
Are you talking about
needing a custom way of coughing up resources, or
that the scheme for finding resources needs to know about the VDL in
some way? In the JAR case, it doesn't care about the VDL at all, it is
simply loading the requested resources out of the JAR regardless of
extension.
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?
I agree that the resource loading scheme in JSF is
weak and can be
improved and that can be done with or without this enhancement. We
could also later generalize the registration for other VDLs, but the
fact that we would need to support options would make this much more
complicated, so I question whether the effort and complexity would be
worth it without further examples.
-- Blake Sullivan
Leonardo Uribe