incubator-adffaces-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Adam Winer" <awi...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [PORTAL] Custom lifecycle?
Date Thu, 26 Oct 2006 20:57:09 GMT
OK, definitely seems worthwhile at least as an initial approach.
(I wish JSF made it easier to register custom lifecycles, but
that's not our issue!)

-- Adam


On 10/25/06, Scott O'Bryan <darkarena@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >
> > You know you can do that all in one phase listener, right?   It's
> > really not much code at all to implement an algorithm like this.
> Yes, but even the code in 10.1.3.2 which doesn't take phases into
> account is somewhat scary.  :) Adding logic to figure out what phase is
> next is a lot more scary.  And as you said, in 1.1, there is no
> guarantee that the endPhaseListener gets called.
>
> > Hrm, I'm confused - I thought you were talking about implementing
> > a custom Lifecycle object.  Do you mean a custom Lifecycle, or just
> > a custom Filter?  A Filter + a PhaseListener is fine.  It's just
> > implementing Lifecycle itself that is a bit scary.
> I'm trying to eliminate the filter all together.  I can put code in the
> bridge which calls a particular "listener" before/after the execute and
> render methods are executed in the bridge, or I can make a custom
> lifecycle which requires NO changes to the bridge and executes the
> initialization code at the beginning and end of the lifecycle itself.
> The object itself wouldn't be too scary as it would do it's
> initialization and then deligate to the underlying lifecycle object.
>
> Code wise, it allows us to take advantage of the JSF ExternalContext
> abstractions much easier and eliminates the need for special handling of
> the "Portal" usecases.
> >
> > -- Adam
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Scott
> >>
> >> Adam Winer wrote:
> >> > On 10/20/06, Scott O'Bryan <darkarena@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> My question is
> >> >> this, is there any reason we can't provide our own custom lifecycle
> >> >> object that decorates the default one and allows us to run our
> >> >> initialization code on the execute and render?  If so, the code to
> >> >> manage things like the TrinidadFacesContext becomes a LOT easier
> >> and we
> >> >> can rely on some of the stuff already build in to the Bridge
> >> Portlets.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > What's the advantage of a custom lifecycle over using
> >> > a phase listener?
> >> >
> >> > --Adam
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message