>>>>> On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 16:59:31 -0600, Jason Porter <lightguard.jp_at_gmail.com> said:
JP> Would be it too much to assume that the class would already be a bean
JP> that we could resolve? If we had that limitation then we avoid the
JP> package problem.
Seems reasonable to me.
KC> Well, the point of using a static method is not requiring an bean
KC> instance. We should not have such restriction.
We don't have to instantiate it to know it has a static method. In JSF,
the ManagedBeanELResolver looks at the "base", checks if it matches a
declared managed bean name, and then, and only then, instantiates it.
We could have a new ELResolver in the chain, before the ManagedBean
ELResolver, that checks "base" to see if it matches a declared managed
bean, then looks to see if it has a static method whose name equals
"property".
The problem here is that the very concept of ManagedBeans is outside of
EL, so we'd have to figure that out somehow.
Ed
--
| edward.burns_at_oracle.com | office: 408 884 9519 OR x31640
| homepage: | http://ridingthecrest.com/