>>>>> On Thu, 7 Feb 2013 13:07:52 -0500, Leonardo Uribe <lu4242_at_gmail.com> said:
LU> javax.faces.flow.MethodCallNode has these methods:
LU> public abstract javax.el.MethodExpression getMethodExpression()
LU> public abstract javax.el.ValueExpression getOutcome()
LU> public abstract java.util.List<Parameter> getParameters()
LU> javax.faces.flow.builder.MethodCallBuilder has these methods:
LU> public abstract MethodCallBuilder expression(javax.el.MethodExpression me)
LU> public abstract MethodCallBuilder expression(java.lang.String methodExpression)
LU> public abstract MethodCallBuilder expression(java.lang.String methodExpression,
LU> java.lang.Class[] paramTypes)
LU> public abstract MethodCallBuilder parameters(java.util.List<Parameter>
LU> parameters)
LU> public abstract MethodCallBuilder defaultOutcome(java.lang.String outcome)
LU> public abstract MethodCallBuilder
LU> defaultOutcome(javax.el.ValueExpression outcome)
LU> public abstract MethodCallBuilder markAsStartNode()
LU> But when using faces-config.xml notation it looks like this:
LU> <flow-definition>
LU> <method-call>
LU> <method>#{someBean.someMethod}</method>
LU> <default-outcome>somePlace<default-outcome>
LU> <parameter>#{takeitFromSomePlaceUsingEL}</parameter>
LU> <parameter>#{takeitFromSomePlaceUsingEL}</parameter>
LU> </method-call>
LU> </flow-definition>
LU> That's the idea, but the problem is the xml notation should provide
LU> a way to define the method signature.
This is one area where the Java gives you a little more fidelity than
the XML, I agree.
Ed