Hey guys,
I'm late on the reply but I want to say, I think it's crucially important that wherever we decide to define the resource contracts, this definition should support EL.
For example:
<f:view contracts="#{cms.resourceContracts}">
...
</f:view>
If we move the resource contract configuration to faces-config.xml wouldn't we lose the ability to use EL expressions?
Regards,
Ian
--
Ian Hlavats - JSF Consultant
Author, JSF 1.2 Components (Packt)
http://www.jsftoolbox.com - Dreamweaver JSF Plugins
http://www.twitter.com/ianhlavats
On Nov 13, 2012, at 4:24 AM, Edward Burns <edward.burns_at_oracle.com> wrote:
> The big problem with putting it on <f:view>: there is no enforcing that
> <f:view> resides in the outer-most XML file in the Facelet inclusion.
> This is the core reason why we need an external config concept.
>
> Leo, how do you suggest we calculateResourceLibraryContracts() works
> without having a viewId? We need the viewId to determine which
> contracts apply, based on the <resource-library-contracts><mappings>.
>
> However, I do see the value in allowing <f:view contracts="foo,bar">,
> not least that you can drop the whole
> <resource-library-contracts><mappings> business in that case.