Hi,
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 5:58 PM, Neil Griffin
<neil.griffin_at_portletfaces.org> wrote:
> If we made the name “javax.faces.ViewState” configurable, wouldn’t we need
> to make the others configurable too?
That was exactly my concern as well. Even at the time that request was
submitted there were already other things, and currently there are a
lot of other things that also should be made configurable.
I still think the request itself is sound, but whether it's feasible
to spec and implement this in a timely fashion at this point is
debatable.
Kind regards,
Arjan Tijms
>
> At this time I think the benefit does not outweigh the drawback.
>
> -1
>
> On Jan 12, 2015, at 11:29 AM, arjan tijms <arjan.tijms_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I do agree with the motivation behind the request; indeed, looking for
> "ViewState" is basically the first thing I do to discover if a site is
> using JSF. In fact, a couple of sites that I suggested for the real
> life JSF page were discovered by looking at this.
>
> I do wonder how feasible it is these days to totally hide the fact
> that a site is using JSF, given a couple of other giveaways like the
> standard jsf AJAX script and known scripts and CSS styles from several
> popular component libraries. Some patterns like the form name as
> hidden parameter and the client ID pattern of components (even when
> the default colon separator is changed to something else) are hints as
> well.
>
> Kind regards,
> Arjan Tijms
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 5:16 PM, manfred riem <manfred.riem_at_oracle.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> What is the general feeling about making the "javax.faces.ViewState" name
> configurable?
>
> Thoughts?
> Manfred
>
>