>>>>> On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 08:08:31 +0200, Martin Marinschek <mmarinschek(a)apache.org&gt; 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? Ed -- | ed.burns(a)sun.com  | office: 408 884 9519 OR x31640 | homepage:         | http://ridingthecrest.com/