You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openwebbeans.apache.org by Sven Linstaedt <sv...@googlemail.com> on 2009/11/15 15:02:57 UTC
Review of WebBeansPhaseListener
Hi,
I have some questions about the JSF integration of OWB, which come to my
mind when dealing with the source code:
_ JSF PhaseListener have to be threadsafe (see JSF 2.0 spec, chapter 12.3.),
but WebBeansPhaseListener references a obvious context dependent
conversation. A quick look at mojarra indicates there is a singleton
instantiated for each PhaseListener, so I supose WebBeansPhaseListenerwill
get into troubles when serving multiple requests. -> Use a ThreadLocal
instead?
_ Conversation scoped beans might be accessed *during* restore view during a
FaceletHandler evaluation. But the ConversationContext is restored *after*
restore view. -> Are there any limitations or drawbacks restoring the
ConversationContext *before* restore view? Weld is also doing this as far as
I remember.
_ Make sure the ViewRoot's initial state is marked *before* modifying it's
attributes, because otherwise the stored information may be lost.
_ WebBeansPhaseListener.fromRedirect ThreadLocal seems not to be resetted
anywhere. Furthermore the initializer of this ThreadLocal is done once (?)
in a static block, and not per created Thread using something like
public static ThreadLocal<Boolean> fromRedirect = new ThreadLocal<Boolean>()
{
protected Boolean initialValue() {
return false;
}
}
In addition, if this static field is public, it should at least be final.
br, Sven
Re: Review of WebBeansPhaseListener
Posted by Gurkan Erdogdu <cg...@gmail.com>.
I think that JSP and Tag Handlers are old tech. Java EE may remove those
parts from the specification in the next revision of the spec. Pure JSF is
always be in favor.
2009/11/23 Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
> Imho it should.
>
> And it must also work for AJAX requests and partial submits.
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
> --- Gurkan Erdogdu <cg...@gmail.com> schrieb am Mo, 23.11.2009:
>
> > Von: Gurkan Erdogdu <cg...@gmail.com>
> > Betreff: Re: Review of WebBeansPhaseListener
> > An: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Datum: Montag, 23. November 2009, 8:04
> > Hi Sven;
> >
> > AFAIK, conversation is defined for using it in pure JSF in
> > the
> > specification. I do not know whether it supports tag
> > handlers or not.
> >
> > --Gurkan
> >
> > 2009/11/23 Sven Linstaedt <sv...@googlemail.com>
> >
> > > I have found a issue, that makes the second point
> > necessary to implement:
> > >
> > > If one uses a conversation scoped bean in an
> > expression, which is evaluated
> > > during restore view as part of a tag handler (e.g. in
> > c:forEach), we need
> > > the conversation already to be restored, because
> > otherwise two
> > > conversations
> > > will be in action during one request: one from the
> > beginning the request
> > > till after restore view phase, and another one (the
> > "right" one actually)
> > > in
> > > the other phases.
> > >
> > > Because before restore view no view and therefore no
> > cid is available
> > > (well,
> > > sound reasonable ;) our only chance is to retrieve the
> > cid from something
> > > else. The current implementation attaches the cid to
> > every form's action
> > > url
> > > due to ConversationAwareViewHandler, so we could use
> > this information for
> > > restoring the conversation. Does anybody has
> > objections or a better
> > > solution
> > > regarding this point in mind?
> > >
> > > br, Sven
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 2009/11/15 Gurkan Erdogdu <gu...@yahoo.com>
> > >
> > > > Hi Sven;
> > > >
> > > > Very good points :) I will try to correct those
> > issues.
> > > >
> > > > PS: If you would like to patch, you are always
> > welcome :)
> > > >
> > > > Thanks again for helping us!
> > > >
> > > > --Gurkan
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Sven Linstaedt <sv...@googlemail.com>
> > > > To: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > Sent: Sun, November 15, 2009 4:02:57 PM
> > > > Subject: Review of WebBeansPhaseListener
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I have some questions about the JSF integration
> > of OWB, which come to my
> > > > mind when dealing with the source code:
> > > >
> > > > _ JSF PhaseListener have to be threadsafe (see
> > JSF 2.0 spec, chapter
> > > > 12.3.),
> > > > but WebBeansPhaseListener references a obvious
> > context dependent
> > > > conversation. A quick look at mojarra indicates
> > there is a singleton
> > > > instantiated for each PhaseListener, so I supose
> > > WebBeansPhaseListenerwill
> > > > get into troubles when serving multiple requests.
> > -> Use a ThreadLocal
> > > > instead?
> > > >
> > > > _ Conversation scoped beans might be accessed
> > *during* restore view
> > > during
> > > > a
> > > > FaceletHandler evaluation. But the
> > ConversationContext is restored
> > > *after*
> > > > restore view. -> Are there any limitations or
> > drawbacks restoring the
> > > > ConversationContext *before* restore view? Weld
> > is also doing this as far
> > > > as
> > > > I remember.
> > > >
> > > > _ Make sure the ViewRoot's initial state is
> > marked *before* modifying
> > > it's
> > > > attributes, because otherwise the stored
> > information may be lost.
> > > >
> > > > _ WebBeansPhaseListener.fromRedirect ThreadLocal
> > seems not to be resetted
> > > > anywhere. Furthermore the initializer of this
> > ThreadLocal is done once
> > > (?)
> > > > in a static block, and not per created Thread
> > using something like
> > > >
> > > > public static ThreadLocal<Boolean>
> > fromRedirect = new
> > > > ThreadLocal<Boolean>()
> > > > {
> > > > protected Boolean initialValue() {
> > > > return false;
> > > > }
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > In addition, if this static field is public, it
> > should at least be final.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > br, Sven
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Gurkan Erdogdu
> > http://gurkanerdogdu.blogspot.com
> >
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Sie sind Spam leid? Yahoo! Mail verfügt über einen herausragenden Schutz
> gegen Massenmails.
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
--
Gurkan Erdogdu
http://gurkanerdogdu.blogspot.com
Re: Review of WebBeansPhaseListener
Posted by Sven Linstaedt <sv...@googlemail.com>.
I have meant Facelet Tag Handlers of course ;)
2009/11/23 Gurkan Erdogdu <cg...@gmail.com>
> >>>And it must also work for AJAX requests and partial submits.
> Those are handled by JSF2. So OWB supports this.
>
> 2009/11/23 Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
>
> > Imho it should.
> >
> > And it must also work for AJAX requests and partial submits.
> >
> > LieGrue,
> > strub
> >
> > --- Gurkan Erdogdu <cg...@gmail.com> schrieb am Mo, 23.11.2009:
> >
> > > Von: Gurkan Erdogdu <cg...@gmail.com>
> > > Betreff: Re: Review of WebBeansPhaseListener
> > > An: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > Datum: Montag, 23. November 2009, 8:04
> > > Hi Sven;
> > >
> > > AFAIK, conversation is defined for using it in pure JSF in
> > > the
> > > specification. I do not know whether it supports tag
> > > handlers or not.
> > >
> > > --Gurkan
> > >
> > > 2009/11/23 Sven Linstaedt <sv...@googlemail.com>
> > >
> > > > I have found a issue, that makes the second point
> > > necessary to implement:
> > > >
> > > > If one uses a conversation scoped bean in an
> > > expression, which is evaluated
> > > > during restore view as part of a tag handler (e.g. in
> > > c:forEach), we need
> > > > the conversation already to be restored, because
> > > otherwise two
> > > > conversations
> > > > will be in action during one request: one from the
> > > beginning the request
> > > > till after restore view phase, and another one (the
> > > "right" one actually)
> > > > in
> > > > the other phases.
> > > >
> > > > Because before restore view no view and therefore no
> > > cid is available
> > > > (well,
> > > > sound reasonable ;) our only chance is to retrieve the
> > > cid from something
> > > > else. The current implementation attaches the cid to
> > > every form's action
> > > > url
> > > > due to ConversationAwareViewHandler, so we could use
> > > this information for
> > > > restoring the conversation. Does anybody has
> > > objections or a better
> > > > solution
> > > > regarding this point in mind?
> > > >
> > > > br, Sven
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 2009/11/15 Gurkan Erdogdu <gu...@yahoo.com>
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Sven;
> > > > >
> > > > > Very good points :) I will try to correct those
> > > issues.
> > > > >
> > > > > PS: If you would like to patch, you are always
> > > welcome :)
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks again for helping us!
> > > > >
> > > > > --Gurkan
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: Sven Linstaedt <sv...@googlemail.com>
> > > > > To: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > > Sent: Sun, November 15, 2009 4:02:57 PM
> > > > > Subject: Review of WebBeansPhaseListener
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > I have some questions about the JSF integration
> > > of OWB, which come to my
> > > > > mind when dealing with the source code:
> > > > >
> > > > > _ JSF PhaseListener have to be threadsafe (see
> > > JSF 2.0 spec, chapter
> > > > > 12.3.),
> > > > > but WebBeansPhaseListener references a obvious
> > > context dependent
> > > > > conversation. A quick look at mojarra indicates
> > > there is a singleton
> > > > > instantiated for each PhaseListener, so I supose
> > > > WebBeansPhaseListenerwill
> > > > > get into troubles when serving multiple requests.
> > > -> Use a ThreadLocal
> > > > > instead?
> > > > >
> > > > > _ Conversation scoped beans might be accessed
> > > *during* restore view
> > > > during
> > > > > a
> > > > > FaceletHandler evaluation. But the
> > > ConversationContext is restored
> > > > *after*
> > > > > restore view. -> Are there any limitations or
> > > drawbacks restoring the
> > > > > ConversationContext *before* restore view? Weld
> > > is also doing this as far
> > > > > as
> > > > > I remember.
> > > > >
> > > > > _ Make sure the ViewRoot's initial state is
> > > marked *before* modifying
> > > > it's
> > > > > attributes, because otherwise the stored
> > > information may be lost.
> > > > >
> > > > > _ WebBeansPhaseListener.fromRedirect ThreadLocal
> > > seems not to be resetted
> > > > > anywhere. Furthermore the initializer of this
> > > ThreadLocal is done once
> > > > (?)
> > > > > in a static block, and not per created Thread
> > > using something like
> > > > >
> > > > > public static ThreadLocal<Boolean>
> > > fromRedirect = new
> > > > > ThreadLocal<Boolean>()
> > > > > {
> > > > > protected Boolean initialValue() {
> > > > > return false;
> > > > > }
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > In addition, if this static field is public, it
> > > should at least be final.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > br, Sven
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Gurkan Erdogdu
> > > http://gurkanerdogdu.blogspot.com
> > >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Sie sind Spam leid? Yahoo! Mail verfügt über einen herausragenden Schutz
> > gegen Massenmails.
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Gurkan Erdogdu
> http://gurkanerdogdu.blogspot.com
>
Re: Review of WebBeansPhaseListener
Posted by Gurkan Erdogdu <cg...@gmail.com>.
>>>And it must also work for AJAX requests and partial submits.
Those are handled by JSF2. So OWB supports this.
2009/11/23 Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
> Imho it should.
>
> And it must also work for AJAX requests and partial submits.
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
> --- Gurkan Erdogdu <cg...@gmail.com> schrieb am Mo, 23.11.2009:
>
> > Von: Gurkan Erdogdu <cg...@gmail.com>
> > Betreff: Re: Review of WebBeansPhaseListener
> > An: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Datum: Montag, 23. November 2009, 8:04
> > Hi Sven;
> >
> > AFAIK, conversation is defined for using it in pure JSF in
> > the
> > specification. I do not know whether it supports tag
> > handlers or not.
> >
> > --Gurkan
> >
> > 2009/11/23 Sven Linstaedt <sv...@googlemail.com>
> >
> > > I have found a issue, that makes the second point
> > necessary to implement:
> > >
> > > If one uses a conversation scoped bean in an
> > expression, which is evaluated
> > > during restore view as part of a tag handler (e.g. in
> > c:forEach), we need
> > > the conversation already to be restored, because
> > otherwise two
> > > conversations
> > > will be in action during one request: one from the
> > beginning the request
> > > till after restore view phase, and another one (the
> > "right" one actually)
> > > in
> > > the other phases.
> > >
> > > Because before restore view no view and therefore no
> > cid is available
> > > (well,
> > > sound reasonable ;) our only chance is to retrieve the
> > cid from something
> > > else. The current implementation attaches the cid to
> > every form's action
> > > url
> > > due to ConversationAwareViewHandler, so we could use
> > this information for
> > > restoring the conversation. Does anybody has
> > objections or a better
> > > solution
> > > regarding this point in mind?
> > >
> > > br, Sven
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 2009/11/15 Gurkan Erdogdu <gu...@yahoo.com>
> > >
> > > > Hi Sven;
> > > >
> > > > Very good points :) I will try to correct those
> > issues.
> > > >
> > > > PS: If you would like to patch, you are always
> > welcome :)
> > > >
> > > > Thanks again for helping us!
> > > >
> > > > --Gurkan
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Sven Linstaedt <sv...@googlemail.com>
> > > > To: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > Sent: Sun, November 15, 2009 4:02:57 PM
> > > > Subject: Review of WebBeansPhaseListener
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I have some questions about the JSF integration
> > of OWB, which come to my
> > > > mind when dealing with the source code:
> > > >
> > > > _ JSF PhaseListener have to be threadsafe (see
> > JSF 2.0 spec, chapter
> > > > 12.3.),
> > > > but WebBeansPhaseListener references a obvious
> > context dependent
> > > > conversation. A quick look at mojarra indicates
> > there is a singleton
> > > > instantiated for each PhaseListener, so I supose
> > > WebBeansPhaseListenerwill
> > > > get into troubles when serving multiple requests.
> > -> Use a ThreadLocal
> > > > instead?
> > > >
> > > > _ Conversation scoped beans might be accessed
> > *during* restore view
> > > during
> > > > a
> > > > FaceletHandler evaluation. But the
> > ConversationContext is restored
> > > *after*
> > > > restore view. -> Are there any limitations or
> > drawbacks restoring the
> > > > ConversationContext *before* restore view? Weld
> > is also doing this as far
> > > > as
> > > > I remember.
> > > >
> > > > _ Make sure the ViewRoot's initial state is
> > marked *before* modifying
> > > it's
> > > > attributes, because otherwise the stored
> > information may be lost.
> > > >
> > > > _ WebBeansPhaseListener.fromRedirect ThreadLocal
> > seems not to be resetted
> > > > anywhere. Furthermore the initializer of this
> > ThreadLocal is done once
> > > (?)
> > > > in a static block, and not per created Thread
> > using something like
> > > >
> > > > public static ThreadLocal<Boolean>
> > fromRedirect = new
> > > > ThreadLocal<Boolean>()
> > > > {
> > > > protected Boolean initialValue() {
> > > > return false;
> > > > }
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > In addition, if this static field is public, it
> > should at least be final.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > br, Sven
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Gurkan Erdogdu
> > http://gurkanerdogdu.blogspot.com
> >
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Sie sind Spam leid? Yahoo! Mail verfügt über einen herausragenden Schutz
> gegen Massenmails.
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
--
Gurkan Erdogdu
http://gurkanerdogdu.blogspot.com
Re: Review of WebBeansPhaseListener
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>.
Imho it should.
And it must also work for AJAX requests and partial submits.
LieGrue,
strub
--- Gurkan Erdogdu <cg...@gmail.com> schrieb am Mo, 23.11.2009:
> Von: Gurkan Erdogdu <cg...@gmail.com>
> Betreff: Re: Review of WebBeansPhaseListener
> An: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Datum: Montag, 23. November 2009, 8:04
> Hi Sven;
>
> AFAIK, conversation is defined for using it in pure JSF in
> the
> specification. I do not know whether it supports tag
> handlers or not.
>
> --Gurkan
>
> 2009/11/23 Sven Linstaedt <sv...@googlemail.com>
>
> > I have found a issue, that makes the second point
> necessary to implement:
> >
> > If one uses a conversation scoped bean in an
> expression, which is evaluated
> > during restore view as part of a tag handler (e.g. in
> c:forEach), we need
> > the conversation already to be restored, because
> otherwise two
> > conversations
> > will be in action during one request: one from the
> beginning the request
> > till after restore view phase, and another one (the
> "right" one actually)
> > in
> > the other phases.
> >
> > Because before restore view no view and therefore no
> cid is available
> > (well,
> > sound reasonable ;) our only chance is to retrieve the
> cid from something
> > else. The current implementation attaches the cid to
> every form's action
> > url
> > due to ConversationAwareViewHandler, so we could use
> this information for
> > restoring the conversation. Does anybody has
> objections or a better
> > solution
> > regarding this point in mind?
> >
> > br, Sven
> >
> >
> >
> > 2009/11/15 Gurkan Erdogdu <gu...@yahoo.com>
> >
> > > Hi Sven;
> > >
> > > Very good points :) I will try to correct those
> issues.
> > >
> > > PS: If you would like to patch, you are always
> welcome :)
> > >
> > > Thanks again for helping us!
> > >
> > > --Gurkan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Sven Linstaedt <sv...@googlemail.com>
> > > To: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > Sent: Sun, November 15, 2009 4:02:57 PM
> > > Subject: Review of WebBeansPhaseListener
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I have some questions about the JSF integration
> of OWB, which come to my
> > > mind when dealing with the source code:
> > >
> > > _ JSF PhaseListener have to be threadsafe (see
> JSF 2.0 spec, chapter
> > > 12.3.),
> > > but WebBeansPhaseListener references a obvious
> context dependent
> > > conversation. A quick look at mojarra indicates
> there is a singleton
> > > instantiated for each PhaseListener, so I supose
> > WebBeansPhaseListenerwill
> > > get into troubles when serving multiple requests.
> -> Use a ThreadLocal
> > > instead?
> > >
> > > _ Conversation scoped beans might be accessed
> *during* restore view
> > during
> > > a
> > > FaceletHandler evaluation. But the
> ConversationContext is restored
> > *after*
> > > restore view. -> Are there any limitations or
> drawbacks restoring the
> > > ConversationContext *before* restore view? Weld
> is also doing this as far
> > > as
> > > I remember.
> > >
> > > _ Make sure the ViewRoot's initial state is
> marked *before* modifying
> > it's
> > > attributes, because otherwise the stored
> information may be lost.
> > >
> > > _ WebBeansPhaseListener.fromRedirect ThreadLocal
> seems not to be resetted
> > > anywhere. Furthermore the initializer of this
> ThreadLocal is done once
> > (?)
> > > in a static block, and not per created Thread
> using something like
> > >
> > > public static ThreadLocal<Boolean>
> fromRedirect = new
> > > ThreadLocal<Boolean>()
> > > {
> > > protected Boolean initialValue() {
> > > return false;
> > > }
> > > }
> > >
> > > In addition, if this static field is public, it
> should at least be final.
> > >
> > >
> > > br, Sven
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Gurkan Erdogdu
> http://gurkanerdogdu.blogspot.com
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Sie sind Spam leid? Yahoo! Mail verfügt über einen herausragenden Schutz gegen Massenmails.
http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Review of WebBeansPhaseListener
Posted by Gurkan Erdogdu <cg...@gmail.com>.
Hi Sven;
AFAIK, conversation is defined for using it in pure JSF in the
specification. I do not know whether it supports tag handlers or not.
--Gurkan
2009/11/23 Sven Linstaedt <sv...@googlemail.com>
> I have found a issue, that makes the second point necessary to implement:
>
> If one uses a conversation scoped bean in an expression, which is evaluated
> during restore view as part of a tag handler (e.g. in c:forEach), we need
> the conversation already to be restored, because otherwise two
> conversations
> will be in action during one request: one from the beginning the request
> till after restore view phase, and another one (the "right" one actually)
> in
> the other phases.
>
> Because before restore view no view and therefore no cid is available
> (well,
> sound reasonable ;) our only chance is to retrieve the cid from something
> else. The current implementation attaches the cid to every form's action
> url
> due to ConversationAwareViewHandler, so we could use this information for
> restoring the conversation. Does anybody has objections or a better
> solution
> regarding this point in mind?
>
> br, Sven
>
>
>
> 2009/11/15 Gurkan Erdogdu <gu...@yahoo.com>
>
> > Hi Sven;
> >
> > Very good points :) I will try to correct those issues.
> >
> > PS: If you would like to patch, you are always welcome :)
> >
> > Thanks again for helping us!
> >
> > --Gurkan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Sven Linstaedt <sv...@googlemail.com>
> > To: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Sent: Sun, November 15, 2009 4:02:57 PM
> > Subject: Review of WebBeansPhaseListener
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have some questions about the JSF integration of OWB, which come to my
> > mind when dealing with the source code:
> >
> > _ JSF PhaseListener have to be threadsafe (see JSF 2.0 spec, chapter
> > 12.3.),
> > but WebBeansPhaseListener references a obvious context dependent
> > conversation. A quick look at mojarra indicates there is a singleton
> > instantiated for each PhaseListener, so I supose
> WebBeansPhaseListenerwill
> > get into troubles when serving multiple requests. -> Use a ThreadLocal
> > instead?
> >
> > _ Conversation scoped beans might be accessed *during* restore view
> during
> > a
> > FaceletHandler evaluation. But the ConversationContext is restored
> *after*
> > restore view. -> Are there any limitations or drawbacks restoring the
> > ConversationContext *before* restore view? Weld is also doing this as far
> > as
> > I remember.
> >
> > _ Make sure the ViewRoot's initial state is marked *before* modifying
> it's
> > attributes, because otherwise the stored information may be lost.
> >
> > _ WebBeansPhaseListener.fromRedirect ThreadLocal seems not to be resetted
> > anywhere. Furthermore the initializer of this ThreadLocal is done once
> (?)
> > in a static block, and not per created Thread using something like
> >
> > public static ThreadLocal<Boolean> fromRedirect = new
> > ThreadLocal<Boolean>()
> > {
> > protected Boolean initialValue() {
> > return false;
> > }
> > }
> >
> > In addition, if this static field is public, it should at least be final.
> >
> >
> > br, Sven
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
--
Gurkan Erdogdu
http://gurkanerdogdu.blogspot.com
Re: Review of WebBeansPhaseListener
Posted by Sven Linstaedt <sv...@googlemail.com>.
I have found a issue, that makes the second point necessary to implement:
If one uses a conversation scoped bean in an expression, which is evaluated
during restore view as part of a tag handler (e.g. in c:forEach), we need
the conversation already to be restored, because otherwise two conversations
will be in action during one request: one from the beginning the request
till after restore view phase, and another one (the "right" one actually) in
the other phases.
Because before restore view no view and therefore no cid is available (well,
sound reasonable ;) our only chance is to retrieve the cid from something
else. The current implementation attaches the cid to every form's action url
due to ConversationAwareViewHandler, so we could use this information for
restoring the conversation. Does anybody has objections or a better solution
regarding this point in mind?
br, Sven
2009/11/15 Gurkan Erdogdu <gu...@yahoo.com>
> Hi Sven;
>
> Very good points :) I will try to correct those issues.
>
> PS: If you would like to patch, you are always welcome :)
>
> Thanks again for helping us!
>
> --Gurkan
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Sven Linstaedt <sv...@googlemail.com>
> To: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Sun, November 15, 2009 4:02:57 PM
> Subject: Review of WebBeansPhaseListener
>
> Hi,
>
> I have some questions about the JSF integration of OWB, which come to my
> mind when dealing with the source code:
>
> _ JSF PhaseListener have to be threadsafe (see JSF 2.0 spec, chapter
> 12.3.),
> but WebBeansPhaseListener references a obvious context dependent
> conversation. A quick look at mojarra indicates there is a singleton
> instantiated for each PhaseListener, so I supose WebBeansPhaseListenerwill
> get into troubles when serving multiple requests. -> Use a ThreadLocal
> instead?
>
> _ Conversation scoped beans might be accessed *during* restore view during
> a
> FaceletHandler evaluation. But the ConversationContext is restored *after*
> restore view. -> Are there any limitations or drawbacks restoring the
> ConversationContext *before* restore view? Weld is also doing this as far
> as
> I remember.
>
> _ Make sure the ViewRoot's initial state is marked *before* modifying it's
> attributes, because otherwise the stored information may be lost.
>
> _ WebBeansPhaseListener.fromRedirect ThreadLocal seems not to be resetted
> anywhere. Furthermore the initializer of this ThreadLocal is done once (?)
> in a static block, and not per created Thread using something like
>
> public static ThreadLocal<Boolean> fromRedirect = new
> ThreadLocal<Boolean>()
> {
> protected Boolean initialValue() {
> return false;
> }
> }
>
> In addition, if this static field is public, it should at least be final.
>
>
> br, Sven
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Review of WebBeansPhaseListener
Posted by Gurkan Erdogdu <gu...@yahoo.com>.
Hi Sven;
Very good points :) I will try to correct those issues.
PS: If you would like to patch, you are always welcome :)
Thanks again for helping us!
--Gurkan
________________________________
From: Sven Linstaedt <sv...@googlemail.com>
To: openwebbeans-dev@incubator.apache.org
Sent: Sun, November 15, 2009 4:02:57 PM
Subject: Review of WebBeansPhaseListener
Hi,
I have some questions about the JSF integration of OWB, which come to my
mind when dealing with the source code:
_ JSF PhaseListener have to be threadsafe (see JSF 2.0 spec, chapter 12.3.),
but WebBeansPhaseListener references a obvious context dependent
conversation. A quick look at mojarra indicates there is a singleton
instantiated for each PhaseListener, so I supose WebBeansPhaseListenerwill
get into troubles when serving multiple requests. -> Use a ThreadLocal
instead?
_ Conversation scoped beans might be accessed *during* restore view during a
FaceletHandler evaluation. But the ConversationContext is restored *after*
restore view. -> Are there any limitations or drawbacks restoring the
ConversationContext *before* restore view? Weld is also doing this as far as
I remember.
_ Make sure the ViewRoot's initial state is marked *before* modifying it's
attributes, because otherwise the stored information may be lost.
_ WebBeansPhaseListener.fromRedirect ThreadLocal seems not to be resetted
anywhere. Furthermore the initializer of this ThreadLocal is done once (?)
in a static block, and not per created Thread using something like
public static ThreadLocal<Boolean> fromRedirect = new ThreadLocal<Boolean>()
{
protected Boolean initialValue() {
return false;
}
}
In addition, if this static field is public, it should at least be final.
br, Sven