Yes this sounds reasonable.
+1
-Ken
On 08/01/2011 12:27 PM, Andy Schwartz wrote:
> 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
>