dev@javaserverfaces.java.net

Re: JAVASERVERFACES-3939

From: arjan tijms <arjan.tijms_at_gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 16:13:53 +0100

I agree that the message is not super clear, but the beans will not
*actually* be placed in request scope. They will still reside in the
session, but they merely act as-if they were request scoped.

In other words, because there's no view-id written to the page, the view
scoped bean residing in the session can't be found anymore after a postback
(since that id is normally used to retrieve it).

Since stateless views would be expected to use GET based links more often
than non-stateless ones, you run the risk of polluting the session with a
lot of unused view scoped beans. Therefor with stateless views and the
current version of the view scope as it ships with JSF 2.2, it's far better
to NOT use the view scope.

The message, more or less, says this, but indeed it's not super clear.








On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 4:01 PM, Kito Mann <kito.mann_at_virtua.com> wrote:

> Xavier is right about the message, too; it's confusing. At the very least,
> it should say "View [xyz] has been marked as stateless; any @ViewScoped
> beans will be placed in request scope."
>
> ___
>
> Kito D. Mann | @kito99 | Author, JSF in Action
> Web Components, Polymer, JSF, PrimeFaces, Java EE, and Liferay training
> and consulting
> Virtua, Inc. | virtua.tech
> JSFCentral.com | @jsfcentral
> +1 203-998-0403
>
> * Listen to the Enterprise Java Newscast: *http://
> <http://blogs.jsfcentral.com/JSFNewscast/>enterprisejavanews.com
> <http://ww.enterprisejavanews.com>*
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Lenny Primak <lprimak_at_hope.nyc.ny.us>
> wrote:
>
>> This issue and solutino seem pretty reasonable (and easy!) to me.
>>
>> > On Jan 14, 2016, at 10:19 AM, kalgon_at_hotmail.com wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > Could some administator re-evaluate JAVASERVERFACES-3939?
>> >
>> > I really think it has been closed without understanding what the
>> > problem was.
>> >
>> > I've added everything I could to make it clear what the problem was but
>> > as the issue is closed, I'm afraid nobody will even take a look at it.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >
>> > Xavier
>> >
>>
>>
>