You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@myfaces.apache.org by Bernd Bohmann <be...@atanion.com> on 2008/09/06 10:31:10 UTC
Partial Lifecycle for Trinidad
Hello,
I just started with a partial lifecycle module for trinidad.
The partial lifecyle is currently an own artifact. The artifact
overrides the default lifecyle and supports partial processDecodes,
processValidators, processUpdates and rendering if the request parameter
partialTarget is present.
If no objections I will commit the trindad-partial-lifecycle module and
create an issue with the attached trinidad-impl diff for discussion.
Regards
Bernd
Following todo's:
Is partialTarget a valid choice for the parameter name?
partialRequest from inside Tree or Table
source inside a partialTarget
decode SubForms?
SubForms
Messages
NavigationTree
broadcast Events UIViewRoot has no public method
writeState is performed by patched FormRenderer
...
Re: Partial Lifecycle for Trinidad
Posted by Scott O'Bryan <da...@gmail.com>.
Very cool. Thanks..
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 6, 2008, at 9:45 AM, Bernd Bohmann <be...@atanion.com>
wrote:
> Hello Scott,
>
> Scott O'Bryan schrieb:
>> Bernd,
>>
>> So to get this straight, is this going to be an extra jar file that
>> you
>> add to the classpath and allows for partial lifecycle processing or
>> is
>> this a change to the Trinidad impl itself?
>>
> It's an optional jar file. But for a working partial lifecycle some of
> the renderer and javascript must be changed a little bit. The changes
> don't effect the old unoptimized lifecycle.
>
>> If the latter, I think we need to be very careful about changing the
>> unoptimized lifecycle until people have a chance to wrap their heads
>> around it. If the former, then I would be willing to take a look,
>> I had
>> some similar ideas recently and think this can only benifit the
>> project.
>
> Certainly it should be reviewed by more people. I don't know all
> internals of trindad.
>>
>> Also, is there any real way we can take a look at the code before
>> it's
>> committed? Maybe move it to the sandbox first so people can take a
>> more
>> detailed look at it?
>
> I would prefer a commit and review policy. I think it should not
> part of
> the sandbox. The new artifact don't need api, imp... it's only a jar
> with a LifecycleFactory. I can add the trinidad-partial-lifecycle
> module
> under
>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/trinidad/trunk_1.2.x/
>
> or
>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/trinidad/trunk_1.2.x/trinidad-sandbox/
>
>>
>> Also I don't undersand your todo's.. I have been off for a month
>> with a
>> new child so I suppose it's possible I'm missing something.
>
> Without the code you can't understand the todo's.
> The list is only a summery of the todo's in the code.
>>
>
> Regards
>
> Bernd
>
Re: Partial Lifecycle for Trinidad
Posted by Bernd Bohmann <be...@atanion.com>.
Hello,
has anybody take a look at it?
Regards
Bernd
Scott O'Bryan schrieb:
> I'll take a look at the trim changes Monday.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Sep 6, 2008, at 9:53 AM, Bernd Bohmann <be...@atanion.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Bernd Bohmann schrieb:
>>>> Also, is there any real way we can take a look at the code before it's
>>>> committed? Maybe move it to the sandbox first so people can take a
>>>> more
>>>> detailed look at it?
>>>
>>> I would prefer a commit and review policy. I think it should not part of
>>> the sandbox. The new artifact don't need api, imp... it's only a jar
>>> with a LifecycleFactory. I can add the trinidad-partial-lifecycle module
>>> under
>>>
>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/trinidad/trunk_1.2.x/
>>>
>>> or
>>>
>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/trinidad/trunk_1.2.x/trinidad-sandbox/
>>>
>>
>> For the changes in trindad-impl I would prefer a review and commit
>> policy, maybe there is a better option for the changes.
>>
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Bernd
>
Re: Partial Lifecycle for Trinidad
Posted by Scott O'Bryan <da...@gmail.com>.
I'll take a look at the trim changes Monday.
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 6, 2008, at 9:53 AM, Bernd Bohmann <be...@atanion.com>
wrote:
>
>
> Bernd Bohmann schrieb:
>>> Also, is there any real way we can take a look at the code before
>>> it's
>>> committed? Maybe move it to the sandbox first so people can take
>>> a more
>>> detailed look at it?
>>
>> I would prefer a commit and review policy. I think it should not
>> part of
>> the sandbox. The new artifact don't need api, imp... it's only a jar
>> with a LifecycleFactory. I can add the trinidad-partial-lifecycle
>> module
>> under
>>
>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/trinidad/trunk_1.2.x/
>>
>> or
>>
>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/trinidad/trunk_1.2.x/trinidad-sandbox/
>
> For the changes in trindad-impl I would prefer a review and commit
> policy, maybe there is a better option for the changes.
>
>
> Regards
>
> Bernd
Re: Partial Lifecycle for Trinidad
Posted by Bernd Bohmann <be...@atanion.com>.
ok
Matthias Wessendorf schrieb:
> On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 8:50 AM, Bernd Bohmann <be...@atanion.com> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> just created issue TRINIDAD-1220.
>>
>> Can I commit the module to
>>
>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/trinidad/trunk_1.2.x/trinidad-partial-lifecycle?
>
> that is fine, to me...
> (please don't add it to the default build process ;-) )
>
> -M
>
>> The example patch for trinidad impl is attached to the issue.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Bernd
>>
>> Matthias Wessendorf schrieb:
>>> I spoke a bit with Bernd about this on the phone.
>>> I'd love to see this happen.
>>>
>>> Bernd, can you just create an artifact that we can review this ?
>>> Or is it possible that you create an issue in JIRA and you attach
>>> the patch and lifecycle + factory ?
>>>
>>> -M
>>>
>>> On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 6:53 AM, Bernd Bohmann <be...@atanion.com> wrote:
>>>> Bernd Bohmann schrieb:
>>>>>> Also, is there any real way we can take a look at the code before it's
>>>>>> committed? Maybe move it to the sandbox first so people can take a more
>>>>>> detailed look at it?
>>>>> I would prefer a commit and review policy. I think it should not part of
>>>>> the sandbox. The new artifact don't need api, imp... it's only a jar
>>>>> with a LifecycleFactory. I can add the trinidad-partial-lifecycle module
>>>>> under
>>>>>
>>>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/trinidad/trunk_1.2.x/
>>>>>
>>>>> or
>>>>>
>>>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/trinidad/trunk_1.2.x/trinidad-sandbox/
>>>> For the changes in trindad-impl I would prefer a review and commit
>>>> policy, maybe there is a better option for the changes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>>
>>>> Bernd
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
Re: Partial Lifecycle for Trinidad
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>.
On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 8:50 AM, Bernd Bohmann <be...@atanion.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> just created issue TRINIDAD-1220.
>
> Can I commit the module to
>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/trinidad/trunk_1.2.x/trinidad-partial-lifecycle?
that is fine, to me...
(please don't add it to the default build process ;-) )
-M
>
> The example patch for trinidad impl is attached to the issue.
>
> Regards
>
> Bernd
>
> Matthias Wessendorf schrieb:
>> I spoke a bit with Bernd about this on the phone.
>> I'd love to see this happen.
>>
>> Bernd, can you just create an artifact that we can review this ?
>> Or is it possible that you create an issue in JIRA and you attach
>> the patch and lifecycle + factory ?
>>
>> -M
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 6:53 AM, Bernd Bohmann <be...@atanion.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Bernd Bohmann schrieb:
>>>>> Also, is there any real way we can take a look at the code before it's
>>>>> committed? Maybe move it to the sandbox first so people can take a more
>>>>> detailed look at it?
>>>> I would prefer a commit and review policy. I think it should not part of
>>>> the sandbox. The new artifact don't need api, imp... it's only a jar
>>>> with a LifecycleFactory. I can add the trinidad-partial-lifecycle module
>>>> under
>>>>
>>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/trinidad/trunk_1.2.x/
>>>>
>>>> or
>>>>
>>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/trinidad/trunk_1.2.x/trinidad-sandbox/
>>> For the changes in trindad-impl I would prefer a review and commit
>>> policy, maybe there is a better option for the changes.
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Bernd
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
Re: Partial Lifecycle for Trinidad
Posted by Bernd Bohmann <be...@atanion.com>.
Hello,
just created issue TRINIDAD-1220.
Can I commit the module to
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/trinidad/trunk_1.2.x/trinidad-partial-lifecycle?
The example patch for trinidad impl is attached to the issue.
Regards
Bernd
Matthias Wessendorf schrieb:
> I spoke a bit with Bernd about this on the phone.
> I'd love to see this happen.
>
> Bernd, can you just create an artifact that we can review this ?
> Or is it possible that you create an issue in JIRA and you attach
> the patch and lifecycle + factory ?
>
> -M
>
> On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 6:53 AM, Bernd Bohmann <be...@atanion.com> wrote:
>>
>> Bernd Bohmann schrieb:
>>>> Also, is there any real way we can take a look at the code before it's
>>>> committed? Maybe move it to the sandbox first so people can take a more
>>>> detailed look at it?
>>> I would prefer a commit and review policy. I think it should not part of
>>> the sandbox. The new artifact don't need api, imp... it's only a jar
>>> with a LifecycleFactory. I can add the trinidad-partial-lifecycle module
>>> under
>>>
>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/trinidad/trunk_1.2.x/
>>>
>>> or
>>>
>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/trinidad/trunk_1.2.x/trinidad-sandbox/
>> For the changes in trindad-impl I would prefer a review and commit
>> policy, maybe there is a better option for the changes.
>>
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Bernd
>>
>
>
>
Re: Partial Lifecycle for Trinidad
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>.
I spoke a bit with Bernd about this on the phone.
I'd love to see this happen.
Bernd, can you just create an artifact that we can review this ?
Or is it possible that you create an issue in JIRA and you attach
the patch and lifecycle + factory ?
-M
On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 6:53 AM, Bernd Bohmann <be...@atanion.com> wrote:
>
>
> Bernd Bohmann schrieb:
>>> Also, is there any real way we can take a look at the code before it's
>>> committed? Maybe move it to the sandbox first so people can take a more
>>> detailed look at it?
>>
>> I would prefer a commit and review policy. I think it should not part of
>> the sandbox. The new artifact don't need api, imp... it's only a jar
>> with a LifecycleFactory. I can add the trinidad-partial-lifecycle module
>> under
>>
>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/trinidad/trunk_1.2.x/
>>
>> or
>>
>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/trinidad/trunk_1.2.x/trinidad-sandbox/
>
> For the changes in trindad-impl I would prefer a review and commit
> policy, maybe there is a better option for the changes.
>
>
> Regards
>
> Bernd
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
Re: Partial Lifecycle for Trinidad
Posted by Bernd Bohmann <be...@atanion.com>.
Bernd Bohmann schrieb:
>> Also, is there any real way we can take a look at the code before it's
>> committed? Maybe move it to the sandbox first so people can take a more
>> detailed look at it?
>
> I would prefer a commit and review policy. I think it should not part of
> the sandbox. The new artifact don't need api, imp... it's only a jar
> with a LifecycleFactory. I can add the trinidad-partial-lifecycle module
> under
>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/trinidad/trunk_1.2.x/
>
> or
>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/trinidad/trunk_1.2.x/trinidad-sandbox/
For the changes in trindad-impl I would prefer a review and commit
policy, maybe there is a better option for the changes.
Regards
Bernd
Re: Partial Lifecycle for Trinidad
Posted by Bernd Bohmann <be...@atanion.com>.
Hello Scott,
Scott O'Bryan schrieb:
> Bernd,
>
> So to get this straight, is this going to be an extra jar file that you
> add to the classpath and allows for partial lifecycle processing or is
> this a change to the Trinidad impl itself?
>
It's an optional jar file. But for a working partial lifecycle some of
the renderer and javascript must be changed a little bit. The changes
don't effect the old unoptimized lifecycle.
> If the latter, I think we need to be very careful about changing the
> unoptimized lifecycle until people have a chance to wrap their heads
> around it. If the former, then I would be willing to take a look, I had
> some similar ideas recently and think this can only benifit the project.
Certainly it should be reviewed by more people. I don't know all
internals of trindad.
>
> Also, is there any real way we can take a look at the code before it's
> committed? Maybe move it to the sandbox first so people can take a more
> detailed look at it?
I would prefer a commit and review policy. I think it should not part of
the sandbox. The new artifact don't need api, imp... it's only a jar
with a LifecycleFactory. I can add the trinidad-partial-lifecycle module
under
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/trinidad/trunk_1.2.x/
or
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/trinidad/trunk_1.2.x/trinidad-sandbox/
>
> Also I don't undersand your todo's.. I have been off for a month with a
> new child so I suppose it's possible I'm missing something.
Without the code you can't understand the todo's.
The list is only a summery of the todo's in the code.
>
Regards
Bernd
Re: Partial Lifecycle for Trinidad
Posted by Scott O'Bryan <da...@gmail.com>.
Bernd,
So to get this straight, is this going to be an extra jar file that you
add to the classpath and allows for partial lifecycle processing or is
this a change to the Trinidad impl itself?
If the latter, I think we need to be very careful about changing the
unoptimized lifecycle until people have a chance to wrap their heads
around it. If the former, then I would be willing to take a look, I had
some similar ideas recently and think this can only benifit the project.
Also, is there any real way we can take a look at the code before it's
committed? Maybe move it to the sandbox first so people can take a more
detailed look at it?
Also I don't undersand your todo's.. I have been off for a month with a
new child so I suppose it's possible I'm missing something.
Scott
Bernd Bohmann wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I just started with a partial lifecycle module for trinidad.
> The partial lifecyle is currently an own artifact. The artifact
> overrides the default lifecyle and supports partial processDecodes,
> processValidators, processUpdates and rendering if the request parameter
> partialTarget is present.
>
> If no objections I will commit the trindad-partial-lifecycle module and
> create an issue with the attached trinidad-impl diff for discussion.
>
> Regards
>
> Bernd
>
> Following todo's:
>
> Is partialTarget a valid choice for the parameter name?
>
> partialRequest from inside Tree or Table
> source inside a partialTarget
> decode SubForms?
> SubForms
> Messages
> NavigationTree
> broadcast Events UIViewRoot has no public method
> writeState is performed by patched FormRenderer
> ...
>
>
>