Re: MyFaces 2.0 question regarding ViewHandler impl

[Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>]

On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 11:00 PM, Simon Lessard
<si...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> Definitely 3. It's true that JSF 2.0's ViewHandler no longer do much, it
> pretty much only deal with HTTP headers and such while most of the work is
> delegated to the VDL. 2 might break the TCK I think so it's not a good
> option.

yeah, I agree. The third option (AbstractViewHandler) is a good choice!

-Matthias

>
> ~ Simon
>
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Michael Concini <mc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I'm currently looking at updating JspViewhandlerImpl and
>> FaceletViewHandlerImpl for MYFACES-2219.  As I'm looking at this, it seems
>> that many/most of the methods that need to be implemented or updated will be
>> identical for both JSP and Facelet.
>> I see three potential ways of handling this:
>> 1) Have lots of duplicate code in both impl classes. 2) Implement in the
>> API.where possible
>> 3) Create an abstract parent class that extends ViewHandler for the impl
>> classes to extend from.
>> The first option is not ideal for obvious reasons.  With respect to the
>> second option, the JSF spec already forces a lot of implementing in the API.
>>  I'd rather not add more if possible since its really not the place for it.
>>  My preference would be for the third option.  I could push the ViewHandler
>> method impls common to both Facelet and JSP to a new class (maybe
>> org.apache.myfaces.application.AbstractViewHandler) and then implement the
>> method which are different for each in the JSP and Facelet impls
>> respectively.
>> Thanks for you input,
>> Mike
>
>



-- 
Matthias Wessendorf

blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf

Re: MyFaces 2.0 question regarding ViewHandler impl

[Cagatay Civici <ca...@gmail.com>]

+1 for 3 as well

On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 11:18 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 11:00 PM, Simon Lessard
> <si...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi Michael,
> >
> > Definitely 3. It's true that JSF 2.0's ViewHandler no longer do much, it
> > pretty much only deal with HTTP headers and such while most of the work
> is
> > delegated to the VDL. 2 might break the TCK I think so it's not a good
> > option.
>
> yeah, I agree. The third option (AbstractViewHandler) is a good choice!
>
> -Matthias
>
> >
> > ~ Simon
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Michael Concini <mc...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> I'm currently looking at updating JspViewhandlerImpl and
> >> FaceletViewHandlerImpl for MYFACES-2219.  As I'm looking at this, it
> seems
> >> that many/most of the methods that need to be implemented or updated
> will be
> >> identical for both JSP and Facelet.
> >> I see three potential ways of handling this:
> >> 1) Have lots of duplicate code in both impl classes. 2) Implement in the
> >> API.where possible
> >> 3) Create an abstract parent class that extends ViewHandler for the impl
> >> classes to extend from.
> >> The first option is not ideal for obvious reasons.  With respect to the
> >> second option, the JSF spec already forces a lot of implementing in the
> API.
> >>  I'd rather not add more if possible since its really not the place for
> it.
> >>  My preference would be for the third option.  I could push the
> ViewHandler
> >> method impls common to both Facelet and JSP to a new class (maybe
> >> org.apache.myfaces.application.AbstractViewHandler) and then implement
> the
> >> method which are different for each in the JSP and Facelet impls
> >> respectively.
> >> Thanks for you input,
> >> Mike
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Matthias Wessendorf
>
> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>