+1 in general. With respect to @ViewScope, I think the spec should require
a warning (I would prefer that it fail, actually.). Basically we're saying
@ViewScope is incompatible with <f:view transient="false">, so why allow it
at all? Silently changing the behavior is going to really annoy people --
JSF does that enough :-).
___
Kito D. Mann | @kito99 | Author, JSF in Action
Virtua, Inc. |
http://www.virtua.com | JSF/Java EE training and consulting
http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info |
@jsfcentral
+1 203-998-0403
* JSF in Action Public Course - NYC - April 2-4:
http://skillsmatter.com/course/java-jee/jsf-and-ajax
* Listen to the Enterprise Java Newscast: *
http://blogs.jsfcentral.com/JSFNewscast/
*
* JSFCentral Interviews Podcast:
http://www.jsfcentral.com/resources/jsfcentralpodcasts/
* Sign up for the JSFCentral Newsletter:
http://oi.vresp.com/?fid=ac048d0e17
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 10:05 PM, Edward Burns <edward.burns_at_oracle.com>wrote:
> >>>>> On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 16:10:24 -0500, Neil Griffin <
> neil.griffin_at_portletfaces.org> said:
>
> NG> By adding this for JSF 2.2, we can change the VDLDocs (technically
> NG> part of the Spec right?) so that they reflect the transient
> NG> attribute.
>
> Yes, certainly.
>
> FC> We should have the transient attribute for all components, because
> FC> it is already there under the hood. The same applies for rendered.
>
> I mentioned this to Manfred as well, but he convinced me to not add it,
> even though it's already in the javadocs because we haven't tested it on
> a fine grained level. We can add it in 2.3 after more testing.
>
> >>>>> On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 23:56:15 -0500, Leonardo Uribe <lu4242_at_gmail.com>
> said:
>
> LU> At first view it sounds like a good idea, but looking in deep there
> LU> are some details that makes me doubt about the convenience of use
> LU> "transient" attribute, and instead use an specific attribute for
> LU> this one.
>
> MR> While I understand more can be done with respect to stateless and
> MR> also the view pooling you mentioned my goal was to limit the changes
> MR> required to a minimum while still satisfying the wishes of our
> MR> community as expressed by the specification issue.
>
> [...]
>
> MR> I hope you can sign off on the limited scope so we can get it
> MR> as it stands into the 2.2 release, and then we will address the
> MR> other changes in the next release.
>
> [...]
>
> LU> My only objection about this is the problem with @ViewScope. If you
> LU> guys want to do, that's ok. Does it make any difference? I don't
> LU> think so, unless with the data I have gathered from MyFaces. Will I
> LU> recommend it? No, it is better keep things simple and let JSF deal
> LU> with stateless/stateful logic.
>
> I understand and acknowledge your concern. The main user-level
> documentation for this will be on the "transient" attribute on <f:view>.
> There I will place a prominent warning that this feature will not work
> with @ViewScoped managed beans.
>
> Is that sufficient to win at least your acquiescence, Leonardo?
>
> FC> +1 for JSF going stateless.
>
> FC> I have only one question: Can we handle post backs in stateless
> FC> mode?
>
> Of course, yes it works fine. The feature would be useless without
> that!
>
> Ok, I'll go forward with the proposal as specified.
>
> Ed
>