Re: [seam-dev] jsf in seam 3

On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 10:31 AM, Clint Popetz <cpopetz(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > > On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 9:21 AM, Dan Allen <dan.j.allen(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 7:59 AM, Clint Popetz <cpopetz(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > >> > >> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 6:26 AM, Pete Muir <pmuir(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > >> > > >> > On 29 Apr 2009, at 07:10, Dan Allen wrote: > >> >> Instead of thinking of replacing the class 1-for-1, think if perhaps > >> >> there > >> >> is base functionality that would be relevant for any environment and > >> >> specific functionality for a framework like JSF. Then, you can > >> >> create a > >> >> generic class and then specialize it using a deployment type and > >> >> @Specializes. Two examples of this so far are > >> >> StatusMessages/FacesStatusMessages and Expressions/FacesExpressions. > >> >> I > >> >> believe that Selector is another candidate for this. There is > >> >> nothing > >> >> specific to JSF about a selector, but it just happens to be in the > >> >> JSF > >> >> package in Seam 2.1. > >> > >> I'm glad to see that this type of consideration is being given to > >> making Seam3 independent of view layer choice.  However, 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'd be willing to do the work to make that happen, if it can be > >> coordinated in such a way that I'm not getting in your way. > > > > Ah, good thinking. I was thinking too narrowly. I'm always open to > > collaboration, and I work well with diff and patch...so if there is a > > patch > > you would like to share with me (pre-commit) I would be glad to test it > > out > > and discuss with you possible next steps. > > I haven't yet seen the work you're doing, so can't patch it easily :P > > I'd say that you could go ahead and commit it and I can look > immediately at patching and committing changes to add the runtime > flexibility.  Alternatively the above jira has a patch to the previous > seam trunk (pre-cleanup) that is well documented.  Or you can send me > your source in patch form pre-commit.   The first option is probably > the easiest for both of us. Everything I have so far is checked in to seam/modules/trunk. But yes, I will review what was proposed for Seam 2 and see if I can work out a solution. I think one way is to change the deployment type to a binding type. That way you do: @Faces StatusMessages statusMessages; I was think I had to completely disable the generic messages, but you have clued me into the fact that they can exist simultaneously. That is the purpose of a binding type. In fact, I know this is the right solution. When the messages are transferred before render, only the @Faces StatusMessages will be transfer to the JSF context whereas the @Wicket StatusMessages will be transferred to the wicket context (since you can only render one or the other for any given request).