[jsr-314-open-mirror] [jsr-314-open] Visit Tree api cannot traverse "real" component tree

Hi In myfaces implementation, I have found multiple locations where it is necessary to traverse the "real" component tree. That means, it is necessary to visit all components ignoring UIData "rows", or components that its children renderer multiple components (for example t:dataList or ui:repeat). It could be good to have a "standard" way to do that. I have the following use cases where I can't use Visit Tree: 1. Publish PostAddToViewEvent 2. Add/remove components to the tree when partial state saving is used. 3. Add attached objects (like a custom client behavior that it is necessary to attach on components with some conditions (t:autoScroll) ). That problem has a side effect: PostRestoreStateEvent should be published only for "real" component instances (the algorithm is restoring only one), but in fact if you have a datatable it is published for all rows, that means the same even is published for the same component over and over and over and over and over. It could be good to have a hint that could be called VisitHint.VISIT_REAL_COMPONENTS or something like that that visit only real components. In othe side, looking the documentation there is a hint called VisitHint.EXECUTE_LIFECYCLE that says the following: "Hint that indicates that the visit is being performed as part of lifecycle phase execution and as such phase-specific actions (initialization) may be taken." I understand why VisitHint.SKIP_TRANSIENT and VisitHint.SKIP_UNRENDERED, but looking the javadoc I couldn't find when, how or why that hint should be set. At this time, myfaces just ignore it, but if it is used, there should be some documentation on UIComponent.visitTree or UIData.visitTree. Maybe I'm wrong about that, and if myfaces don't use it really there is not problem, but the point is: Is mojarra really implementing the algorithm that says the javadoc?. It could be good if someone could check this algorithm against javadoc, because really it is very suspicious. Should I open an issue for these ones (one for each problem)? regards, Leonardo Uribe