Issue Details (XML | Word | Printable)

Type: Improvement Improvement
Status: Resolved Resolved
Resolution: Won't Fix
Priority: Major Major
Assignee: Unassigned
Reporter: keesbroenink
Votes: 6
Watchers: 1

If you were logged in you would be able to see more operations.

Support multiple ViewHandlers

Created: 06/May/07 01:06 PM   Updated: 24/Jan/14 09:45 PM   Resolved: 24/Jan/14 09:45 PM
Component/s: Uncategorized
Affects Version/s: 1.1
Fix Version/s: 2.2

Time Tracking:
Not Specified


Operating System: All
Platform: All

Issuezilla Id: 260
Status Whiteboard:

EGTop5 effort_hard size_large importance_medium draft

Participants: Ed Burns, keesbroenink and rogerk

 Description  « Hide

Combining facelets and jsp's in one webapplication requires some special custom
settings in web.xml. Because the JSF sepc allows only one ViewHandler per
application, the Facelets ViewHandler delegates to his parent ViewHandler when
the request is mapped to a JSP in stead of a facelet.

It would be more elegant to have more than one ViewHandler per webapplication.
This could work on url mapping possibly using faces config in stead of web.xml
to allow for a more powerful mapping mechanism (eg regular expressions). People
who have worked with Cocoon will understand how powerful that can be.

rogerk added a comment - 22/Aug/08 08:49 AM

Status Whiteboard

Ed Burns added a comment - 12/Sep/08 04:43 PM


Ed Burns added a comment - 12/Sep/08 04:47 PM

change target_milestone to 2.0

Ed Burns added a comment - 20/Oct/08 01:36 PM

We could modify the contract of Application.getViewHandler() so that it would check if a mapping is
available for this viewId, and if so, return the appropriate ViewHandler instance.

We must specify that the ctor of a ViewHandler declared in this way would only get passed the default

Ed Burns added a comment - 28/Jul/09 12:39 PM

Moving to 2.1

Ed Burns added a comment - 24/Nov/09 07:47 AM

Prepare to delete "spec" subcomponent.

Ed Burns added a comment - 14/Dec/09 08:59 AM

Move these to unscheduled because we need to target them correctly. isn't
specific enough.

Ed Burns added a comment - 04/Mar/10 12:50 PM

I wonder if a better way to do this is to have separate wars, each with their
own configuration, each that has its own VDL declared? I'd like to close this
now and if you disagree with this approach, you can re-open it.

rogerk added a comment - 17/Jun/10 10:17 AM


rogerk added a comment - 27/Oct/10 12:34 PM