Re: [jsr-314-open] Issue? Uniqueness of the ViewState parameter id.

For Ajax, here is what we do w.r.t javax.faces.viewState: If an update element is found in the response with the identifier javax.faces.ViewState: <update id="javax.faces.ViewState"> <![CDATA[...]]> </update> Include this state in the document as follows: * Extract this <update> element's CDATA contents from the response. * If the document contains an element with the identifier javax.faces.ViewState replace its contents with the CDATA contents. * For each <form> element in the document: o If the <form> element contains an <input> element with the identifier javax.faces.ViewState, replace the <input> element contents with the <update> element's CDATA contents. o If the <form> element does not contain an element with the identifier javax.faces.ViewState, create an <input> element of the type hidden, with the identifier javax.faces.ViewState, set its contents to the <update> element's CDATA contents, and add the <input> element as a child to the <form> element. -roger michael freedman wrote: > Alexandr is also right, there maybe Ajax related problems as well at > least in the portlet case. Doesn't the PPR processing need to update > the ViewState after a partial request? Do we expect (by spec) all > impls to manage the viewstate in a javascript variable and have the > various hidden fields pull this value on full page submits? Or might > impls try and push the updated ViewState into the hidden field? If > the later won't they have problems in a multi-form page? If the > former, what can we do to account for the portlet situation where I > have multiple portlets on a page each with distinct ViewState? I.e. > if the portlet renders a JSF view its ViewState is distinct from > another portlet (rendering a JSF view) incorporated into the page. > -Mike- > > Pete Muir wrote: >> At least in JSF1.2 Mike is correct, the hidden form field written >> out to set the viewstate parameter has the same id for each form, >> which means the HTML is not well formed and would not pass an HTML >> validator. >> >> I remember coming across this before and raising it with someone - >> perhaps Ryan or Ed? >> >> On 26 Feb 2009, at 21:19, Alexandr Smirnov wrote: >> >>> Faces allows as many form on page as you wish. The fields with >>> state do >>> not mixeed as they as are unique per form. This is not a problem for >>> Portlet applications, because only one hidden field submitted by form. >>> But that could be problem for an AJAX case, there client-side script >>> have to found appropriate state field to include in >>> HttpServletRequest. >>> >>> michael freedman wrote: >>>> From the looks of things in JSF 1.2 (and I imagine this hasn't >>>> changed >>>> in 2.0), JSF's hidden field holding the view state parameter is >>>> written using a static id/name. I.e. the id of the field isn't >>>> namespaced by its containers. Though not a common case, Faces does >>>> allow multiple (separate) form tags in a page, right? In that >>>> situation aren't we violating strict HTML rules requiring id >>>> uniqueness? Why does the id need to be static? Can't we make this >>>> unique? >>>> -Mike- >> >> -- >> Pete Muir >> http://www.seamframework.org >> http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Pete