> Thanks for the feedback. But why did this work previously and then start failing with GF 2.1.1?
I guess because that version of jsf was not following the spec.
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 11:40 PM, <glassfish_at_javadesktop.org> wrote:
> Here is feedback I got from one our other developers:
>
> "That just described the work around.
>
> That kind of defeats the purpose of having the container manage the creation of the Object in the container. I could do this but I’m thinking that somewhere on the pages there will be objects the program does not create ( like all the abstracted table creation in Woodstock tables ) and we will get the error showing up again. Sometime the program just gets to point at an ArrayList but the container will manufacture a different Object and wrap the ArrayList using a Class the programmer never see’s or knows about."
I'm not very familiar with Woodstock, as this is pre my JSF time...
afaik woodstock is dead now, the guys seem to prefer using IceFaces.
I actually prefer using JSF 2 components that are able to work with
simple arrays, List, Maps etc. like those provided in Mojarra 2.0
itself and those from e.g. PrimeFaces.
I'm quite sure no-one needs AbstractTableModels and what the heck they call it
in a JSF 2 app, but it may be necessary in JSF 1.1/1.2.
IMO JSFs 1.2 faces-config.xml is just a weak spring-context
alternative. If you want to declare beans in xml, you should
definitely switch to spring managed beans... there its also possible
to do what you wanted to do in the first place just with xml.
--
Dominik Dorn
http://dominikdorn.com
Limp Bizkit Lyrics: http://www.lyrix.eu/lyrics/Limp-Bizkit/