>>>>> On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 16:10:24 -0500, Neil Griffin <neil.griffin_at_portletfaces.org> said:
NG> By adding this for JSF 2.2, we can change the VDLDocs (technically
NG> part of the Spec right?) so that they reflect the transient
NG> attribute.
Yes, certainly.
FC> We should have the transient attribute for all components, because
FC> it is already there under the hood. The same applies for rendered.
I mentioned this to Manfred as well, but he convinced me to not add it,
even though it's already in the javadocs because we haven't tested it on
a fine grained level. We can add it in 2.3 after more testing.
>>>>> On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 23:56:15 -0500, Leonardo Uribe <lu4242_at_gmail.com> said:
LU> At first view it sounds like a good idea, but looking in deep there
LU> are some details that makes me doubt about the convenience of use
LU> "transient" attribute, and instead use an specific attribute for
LU> this one.
MR> While I understand more can be done with respect to stateless and
MR> also the view pooling you mentioned my goal was to limit the changes
MR> required to a minimum while still satisfying the wishes of our
MR> community as expressed by the specification issue.
[...]
MR> I hope you can sign off on the limited scope so we can get it
MR> as it stands into the 2.2 release, and then we will address the
MR> other changes in the next release.
[...]
LU> My only objection about this is the problem with @ViewScope. If you
LU> guys want to do, that's ok. Does it make any difference? I don't
LU> think so, unless with the data I have gathered from MyFaces. Will I
LU> recommend it? No, it is better keep things simple and let JSF deal
LU> with stateless/stateful logic.
I understand and acknowledge your concern. The main user-level
documentation for this will be on the "transient" attribute on <f:view>.
There I will place a prominent warning that this feature will not work
with @ViewScoped managed beans.
Is that sufficient to win at least your acquiescence, Leonardo?
FC> +1 for JSF going stateless.
FC> I have only one question: Can we handle post backs in stateless
FC> mode?
Of course, yes it works fine. The feature would be useless without
that!
Ok, I'll go forward with the proposal as specified.
Ed