Hi Ed,
Am 16.11.2012 um 04:39 schrieb Edward Burns <edward.burns_at_oracle.com>:
>>>>>> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 20:46:58 +0100, Frank Caputo <frank_at_frankcaputo.de> said:
>
> Regarding where calculateResourceLibraryContracts() resides:
>
> LU> +1 to use ViewHandler. Even if some VDL does not implement this feature, it
> LU> is clearly a view related concept.
>
> EB> I want to argue for having it in VDL. Let me remind you why we invented
> EB> VDL in the first place: to give a home to concerns related to the View
> EB> Declaration Language, meaning Facelets. The ViewHandler doesn't know
> EB> anything about the internal structure of a view, for example, how to
> EB> take an XML file and create a tree of UIComponent instances from it.
> EB> The VDL impl *does* know about that sort of thing.
>
> FC> I still want to argue for the ViewHandler, because this feature
> FC> applies to any resources and the ResourceHandler will work
> FC> independent from the VDL.
>
> I see this feature mainly as a template feature that also does
> resources.
>
> It doesn't apply at all to JSP. Each method in the VDL has text that
> says what must be done for the JSP impl of the VDL and for the Facelet
> version of the VDL. If we put it in ViewHandler, then we have no way to
> cleanly say what happens if someone tries to use the feature from JSP,
> where it won't work.
It will work for resources. So it is not useless for JSP, there is just no default implementation, right? If someone want's to use it with JSP, she must decorate the ViewDeclarationLanguage with a custom ViewDeclarationLanguageFactory and implement calculateResourceLibraryContracts.
Ciao Frank
> When we put it in VDL, I say "in JSP, take no action,
> in Facelets do this and that."
>
> I am still comfortable in my decision to put it into VDL.
>
> Ed
>
> --
> | edward.burns_at_oracle.com | office: +1 407 458 0017
> | homepage: | http://ridingthecrest.com/
>