Neil,
I agree that some sort of pluggability would be useful. It might allow
libraries such as PrimeFaces to use the standard APIs but still use their
own implementations (right now, PrimeFaces' JS side is completely
proprietary and uses jQuery internally).
Out of curiosity, though, couldn't you override the JSF JS functions using
some of the standard JavaScript tricks?
___
Kito D. Mann | @kito99 | Author, JSF in Action
Virtua, Inc. |
http://www.virtua.com | JSF/Java EE training and consulting
http://www.JSFCentral.com | @jsfcentral
+1 203-998-0403
* Listen to the Enterprise Java Newscast: *http://
<
http://blogs.jsfcentral.com/JSFNewscast/>enterprisejavanews.com
<
http://ww.enterprisejavanews.com>*
* JSFCentral Interviews Podcast:
http://www.jsfcentral.com/resources/jsfcentralpodcasts/
* Sign up for the JSFCentral Newsletter:
http://oi.vresp.com/?fid=ac048d0e17
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 5:13 PM, Neil Griffin <neil.griffin_at_portletfaces.org
> wrote:
> On Oct 22, 2014, at 4:27 PM, Edward Burns <edward.burns_at_oracle.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2014 19:30:03 +0200, Frank Caputo <frank_at_frankcaputo.de>
> said:
>
>
> FC> I'd like to see a complete rework of JSF's JavaScript library, which
> FC> will make it work well together with all those modern JS frameworks.
>
> EB> I can't countenance a complete rework but I can entertain incremental
> EB> changes, such as what Neil mentions here:
>
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2014 14:35:15 -0400, Neil Griffin <
> neil.griffin_at_portletfaces.org> said:
>
>
> NG> One of the things that the 362 (Portlet 3.0) EG has discussed
> NG> verbally with Ed Burns is the need for the JSF Portlet Bridge to
> NG> somehow decorate the jsf.ajax.request() and jsf.ajax.response()
> NG> JavaScript functions. Perhaps this requirement could be included in
> NG> a rework of the jsf.js library.
>
> EB> Neil, can you summarize the current thinking on how this will be done
> in
> EB> JSR-362 Portlet 3.0?
>
>
> Not the prettiest solution... but we discussed the possibility of having
> the JSF Portlet Bridge's ResourceHandler deliver a transformed jsf.js
> resource such that the jsf.ajax.request and jsf.ajax.response functions
> would be renamed to something like jsf_impl.ajax.request and
> jsf_impl.ajax.response respectively. The JSF Portlet Bridge would need to
> provide its own implementations of jsf.ajax.request and jsf.ajax.response
> in order to handle the Portlet 3.0 requirements and then call-through to
> the jsf_impl.ajax.request and jsf_impl.ajax.response functions.
>
> Another possibility would be for the JSF Portlet Bridge to provide its own
> JSF 2.3 implementation of jsf.js, but this has not been necessary for JSF
> 2.0/2.1/2.2 and I would prefer to avoid it.
>
> My preference would be some type of extension mechanism at the level of
> the JSF JavaScript API.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Neil
>
>
>
>