Hi Ed,
Why would this make a difference? You could sell to me that you cannot
use @Named due to technological restrictions - but you cannot sell to
me that you cannot use it because UIComponents are not Pojos.
I rather think that UIComponents should be much more like Pojos in the end ;)
In any case, in a CDI container, every class is a bean, as long as
there is a META-INF/beans.xml in the same "package" (e.g. jar file).
So also UIComponents will end up being beans if this file is there.
best regards,
Martin
On 2/16/12, Edward Burns <edward.burns_at_oracle.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 10:30:01 -0500, Kito Mann <kito.mann_at_virtua.com>
>>>>>> said:
>
> KM> Hello Ed,
> KM> I understand the decisions you made with respect to the tagName
> attribute.
> KM> I do have a couple of suggestions, though:
>
> KM> * Rename the tagHandler attribute to something like "createTag".
>
> Done.
>
>>>>>> On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 02:42:42 +0100, Martin Marinschek
>>>>>> <mmarinschek_at_apache.org> said:
>
> MM> maybe I am way off base here, but wouldn't the @Named annotation from
> MM> the Injection JSR fit the bill just fine instead of an attribute on
> MM> the @FacesComponent?
>
> With @Named there is no requirement that the class to which the
> annotation implements any specific contract. In other words, @Named is
> just for POJOs. 594-FacesComponentTagHandler is specifically for
> classes that are UIComponents.
>
> After I make this clarification, do you still persist in your suggestion
> that we investigate using @Named in this context?
>
> Ed
>
> --
> | edward.burns_at_oracle.com | office: +1 407 458 0017
> | homepage: | http://ridingthecrest.com/
>
--
http://www.irian.at
Your JSF powerhouse -
JSF Consulting, Development and
Courses in English and German
Professional Support for Apache MyFaces