Re: [jsr-314-open] Outcome of JSFDays discussions

Hey Martin - BTW, when looking through the PFD spec (the pdf doc) for info on <composite:renderUsingPageChildren>, I didn't find anything (just the vdl/pdl doc) - though I did find a reference to <composite:insertChildren> in section 10.3.3.3. So at one point was <composite:renderUsingPageChildren> named <composite:insertChildren>? "insertChildren" seems like a nicer name - and is consistent with our <composite:insertFacet> tag name. Anyone remember how we ended up with "renderUsingPageChildren"? Is "insertChildren" not an appropriate name?

> - A very small thing, but could be very useful: we could define that > the component-tag-handler of the facelets-vdl needs to put the > location of the component into the component-attributes map. With > this, we can emit the location of the component if there is an > exception during any lifecyle-phase - I believe this would help many > application developers. We can do this now (and shouldn't have done > before) cause with partial-state it is not a problem to have this > information in the component attributes map. > Definitely a fan of anything that we can do to improve ease of debugging. Regarding full vs partial state saving... I am thinking that we may need to save full state in certain cases (eg. if we run into cases that partial state saving cannot handle correctly). If we are concerned about bloating the saved state size with location information in such cases, one option might be to only store location information when project stage == development. Actually, perhaps only storing location information during the development (or, at least, non-production) stage might not be a bad idea anyway?