On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 12:30 AM, Drew Kutcharian <drew(a)venarc.com> wrote:
Now why would someone really mix Wicket and JSF together in a single
app?
One example is a code base transitioning from one framework to the other,
with a lot of legacy code still in the old framework, and no easy way to
split it into separate WARs. Another is two groups operating on separate
parts of the same app, each with their own reasons for choosing a view
framework.
In addition, if you do want to allow that runtime selection and allow
users
to mix and match different view frameworks at runtime, then you need to
think about a page that has both JSF and Wicket elements on it, for example
a portal style app. Then you really need to think about who consumes
what/when.
That's a false dichotomy. Whether JSF/Wicket are interoperable in a portal
fashion is orthogonal to whether Seam should assume every request in an app
is for one view framework.
-Clint
cheers,
Drew Kutcharian
Chief Technology Officer
Venarc Inc.
www.venarc.com
Phone: 818-524-2500
On May 26, 2009, at 9:59 PM, Dan Allen wrote:
Regarding the discussion of the design for StatusMessages...
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 7:59 AM, Clint Popetz <cpopetz(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> I want to
> point out that using a deployment type and @Specializes would seem to
> place us in the same situation as Seam 2.x with respect to the view
> layers co-existing in the same deployment, which
>
https://jira.jboss.org/jira/browse/JBSEAM-3645 was meant to address.
>
> In other words, I'd rather that the choice of the StatusMessages bean
> that will be activated isn't based on deployment type, but rather is
> chosen at runtime based on the type of request, using the pattern in
> the patch for the above jira issue. Deployment types would of course
> still be used to choose which implementations of things like
> StatusMessages are available.
I have taken a first stab at solving this problem. I'm open to other
approaches, but first let me explain what I've done. As Clint points out,
from one request to the next, you may be dealing with different frameworks
(Wicket vs JSF for instance). But within the request, you want to be able to
take specific actions relating to the current framework. Clearly, this is
not the appropriate scenario for a deployment type since that is design for
a setting/environment that is fixed. So I did some brainstorming.
What I realized is that StatusMessages are really a generic repository that
should be updated and consumed by the framework-specific activity.
Therefore, it seems to me like there should be one and only one
conversation-scoped StatusMessages. Then, if you want to have some extra
methods for convenience (for instance in JSF to add a StatusMessage from an
existing FacesMessage) you create a class which extends and wraps the
StatusMessages component (StatusMessages would be injected into it and all
overrides delegating to it). You could also override the onBeforeRender()
method where you might put the logic for converting and transfering to the
native message type and storage. The executor of that conversion would be
implemented in the framework-specific listener.
For instance, 9 out of 10 times you simply inject the StatusMessages to use
in your application:
@Current StatusMessages statusMessages;
For JSF, there is a FacesMessages bean which inherits from StatusMessages
(to keep the API the same) and delegates calls to the StatusMessages
instance. It also adds the logic to create FacesMessage objects in the
onBeforeRender() method
public void onBeforeRender() {
super.onBeforeRender();
// create FacesMessage objects and register them here
}
The ConvertStatusMessagesListener (a JSF system event listener) executes
the onBeforeRender() call.
manager.getInstanceByType(StatusMessages.class, new
AnnotationLiteral<Faces>() {}).onBeforeRender();
There are also some convenience methods on the FacesMessages instance. If
you want to use them, you inject as follows:
@Faces FacesMessages facesMessages;
I can't use @Current here because otherwise the resolution would be
ambigous. I could just clone the StatusMessages API in the FacesMessages
class to avoid having to use this binding type, so if you have a
feeling/advice there, I would be glad to here it.
Okay, that's one approach. Now for something different. There is a similar
specialization w/ the Expressions class (an EL convenience API). If working
within the JSF request, we want to override some methods so that the bean
uses the current JSF EL context. In this case, I decided to try Clint's
approach described in the cited issue report. A producer method will locate
beans that have the binding type @RuntimeSelected and will consult the
isActive() method to determine which one is prepared to handle the current
request. The isActive() method comes from the RuntimeSelectedBean interface.
So the bean must have both the binding type and the interface. There is a
second binding type, @Default, which indicates which implementation should
be used when there are no @RuntimeSelected implementations present or
active. It is mutually exclusive with @RuntimeSelected.
So you have:
public @Default class Expressions { ... }
public @RuntimeSelected class FacesExpressions extends Expressions,
RuntimeSelectedBean {
public boolean isActive()
{
return FacesContext.getCurrentInstance() != null;
}
}
public @RuntimeSelected class WicketExpressions extends Expressions,
RuntimeSelectedBean {
public boolean isActive()
{
return Application.exists();
}
}
The producer type for the Expressions bean is application-scoped and the
producer method is dependent-scoped (or request-scoped?). The available
instances are looked up when the producer is initialized and the instance is
selected from this set each time the producer is resolved.
Of course, I could have used this strategy for the StatusMessages too,
except in the case of StatusMessages it is logical to use the shared/generic
StatusMessages bean. It's only when you need to convert the messages do you
need the specialization and therefore I think we can avoid having to do the
runtime selection.
I've committed all of this to the Seam trunk if you want to check it out.
I'm open to suggestions...I'm just trying to get used WB and find a workable
approach. The solutions we decide on are important because the define a
standard practice we will follow as more cases arise.
-Dan
--
Dan Allen
Senior Software Engineer, Red Hat | Author of Seam in Action
http://mojavelinux.com
http://mojavelinux.com/seaminaction
http://in.relation.to/Bloggers/Dan
NOTE: While I make a strong effort to keep up with my email on a daily
basis, personal or other work matters can sometimes keep me away
from my email. If you contact me, but don't hear back for more than a week,
it is very likely that I am excessively backlogged or the message was
caught in the spam filters. Please don't hesitate to resend a message if
you feel that it did not reach my attention.
_______________________________________________
seam-dev mailing list
seam-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/seam-dev
_______________________________________________
seam-dev mailing list
seam-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/seam-dev
--
Clint Popetz
http://42lines.net
Scalable Web Application Development