users@javaserverfaces-spec-public.java.net

[jsr372-experts mirror] [jsr372-experts] Re: [1311-FacesContextCDI] Let CDI handle #{facesContext}

From: Edward Burns <edward.burns_at_oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2014 07:27:47 -0700

>>>>> On Tue, 7 Oct 2014 00:50:23 +0200, arjan tijms <arjan.tijms_at_gmail.com> said:

[Arjan's excellent summary deleted].

AT> CDI will now insert that instance into the scope, proxy the instance,
AT> and return it to its own EL resolver, which will return it to the EL
AT> implementation, which will return it to whomever did a getValue() or
AT> equivalent call in the first place.

I wouldn't be surprised if there is code out there that assumes the
instance returned by FacesContext.getCurrentInstance() is *NOT* a
proxy. If so, that code will likely break. Do we care about that?
Personally, yes, I do care about that. Does anyone else think this is a
risk?

>>>>> On Mon, 06 Oct 2014 16:26:55 -0500, manfred riem <manfred.riem_at_oracle.com> said:

MR> Hi Leonardo,
MR> If we let CDI handle the EL resolving of #{facesContext} it does not
MR> imply in any form or shape that the JSF runtime is not in control of
MR> creating the FacesContext. All it means is that when you have a
MR> #{facesContext} EL expression it will use the CDI FacesContextProducer
MR> to get the FacesContext.

What does your proposal mean for the return from
FacesContext.getCurrentInstance()? Will that still be the same, or will
it be the proxy?

>>>>> On Mon, 6 Oct 2014 23:52:02 +0200, arjan tijms <arjan.tijms_at_gmail.com> said:

AT> The CDI spec does not have to know anything about FacesContext, since
AT> it's the JSF dynamic producer that's in control. CDI only provides the
AT> mechanism so that with a minimum amount of code the same instance can
AT> be made available for both injection and usage in EL. The instance is
AT> created by JSF using the existing FacesContext.getCurrentInstance()
AT> call, so nothing changes there.

Ah, so it will be the same instance as in prior JSF releases?

AT> Another concern could be the existence of
AT> FacesContext.setCurrentInstance(FacesContext instance).

Yes, this is a valid concern, and we do indeed call that, and I'm sure
folks outside of JSF call it. Again, do we care about breaking them?


Ed

-- 
| edward.burns_at_oracle.com | office: +1 407 458 0017
| 23 work days til Devoxx 2014