Re: Seeking Review: 438, 362, 456

From: Ryan Lubke <Ryan.Lubke_at_Sun.COM>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 10:43:33 -0700

Ed Burns wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 08:30:09 -0700, Ryan Lubke <Ryan.Lubke_at_Sun.COM> said:
> EB> A jsf-api/test/javax/faces/component/
> EB> A jsf-ri/systest/web/message05.jsp
> EB>
> EB> - New testcase, needs more work.
> EB>
> RL> Which one needs more work?
> The JSP one, but I'd like some oversight on the jsf-api test as well.
> Here are the problems. 1. In the Jsp file, I have a c:forEach that I
> want to use to print the messages. I can't get it to work. I'm not
> sure if that's a bug. 2. I don't have a systest java file that loads
> that message05.jsp file and asserts on the result.
> EB> * <p>Return an <code>Iterator</code> over the {_at_link javax.faces.application.FacesMessage}s that
> EB> * have been queued that are associated with the specified client identifier
> EB> * (if <code>clientId</code> is not <code>null</code>), or over the
> EB>
> RL> I'm curios as to why these new methods are returning unmodifiable
> RL> Lists? The Iterator version of these methods support modifications.
> RL> Seems odd that one can be modified while the other cannot.
> I thought it would be easier that way. If I fix the javadocs to remove
> the unmodifiable constraint, can you sign on for implementing it?
Yes, I can. Please make sure the existing tests are running
before you commit your changes.

Also, don't commit until you've seen the EDR2 (JSF2_0_EDR2_BRANCH)
branch created
by Jim.

> Thanks,
> Ed