Gang -
Back in January I called out inconsistencies between how MyFaces and
Mojarra perform partial state save/restore traversals:
http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/jsr-314-open-mirror/2011-January/003203.html
Short summary: Mojarra uses tree visiting. MyFaces does not. We should
standardize/be consistent.
I also questioned whether tree visiting was necessary for this case:
> Is tree visiting even the right tool for the job?
>
> Should we perhaps avoid this complexity altogether by sticking with a
> facets + children traversal (eg. as currently implemented by MyFaces)
> for partial state saving/restoring?
>
> Or are there cases where component implementations do in fact need
> control over the way that this traversal is performed, in which case an
> internal iteration solution (like tree visiting) is necessary?
Since then, I have found two cases in Trinidad where we want to hook
into the partial state saving traversal: both UIXComponentBase and
UIXCollection override processSaveState() to add some Trinidad-specific
processing.
I am now thinking that the tree visit approach is the right way to go,
as this gives components that currently override
processSaveState/processRestoreState a place to hook into the partial
state save/restore traversals. Mojarra already does this, so we're
talking a (small) spec change + MyFaces implementation change.
Does this sound reasonable?
Andy