Hi,
On Thursday, October 23, 2014, Leonardo Uribe <leonardo.uribe_at_irian.at>
wrote:
> Sometimes you have a bunch of .js or .css files and you want to group all
> of them into a single file. To do that, you can create a custom
> ResourceHandler and redirect the resource requests to the suggested
> resource that joins all the files or use some library that has already that
> logic.
> [...]
> Some people has already provided solutions.
Do you mean something like the combined resource handler in OmniFaces? (
http://showcase.omnifaces.org/resourcehandlers/CombinedResourceHandler )
Kind regards,
Arjan Tijms
> Please note this logic can be made to override jsf.js javascript as
> well. But from design perspective I don't feel very good about have
> alternate versions of jsf.js, instead I would like to make jsf.js work
> even with portlets.
>
> It is a fact that JSF is very pluggable from the java perspective, but
> the fact that you cannot customize the behavior of jsf.js (pass config
> params on initialization like project stage and others) becomes a
> problem.
>
> regards,
>
> Leonardo Uribe
>
>
> 2014-10-22 16:13 GMT-05:00 Neil Griffin <neil.griffin_at_portletfaces.org
> <javascript:;>>:
> > On Oct 22, 2014, at 4:27 PM, Edward Burns <edward.burns_at_oracle.com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 14 Oct 2014 19:30:03 +0200, Frank Caputo <frank_at_frankcaputo.de
> <javascript:;>>
> > 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 <javascript:;>> 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
> >
> >
> >
>