Details
Bug
Description
Thanks for your email. I will discuss the support contract with my client and I
will fax you the contribution agreement today.
We have also put together a test case for facelets in portlets.
There are 2 files attached to this email. One webapp and one portlet. The only
difference is the SeamPortletPhaseListener in faces-config.xml.
I might have been a bit harsh when I said that facelets do not work in portlets
but there is definitely a difference. In the webapp the #{link} in the main body
gets refreshed and redisplayed in the portlet it does not. That is why one has
the impression that nothing is happening. However the TestBean gets called and
the link is set in the context and indeed when the browser gets refreshed the
link gets changed. I believe the default behaviour for ajax is the webapp
behaviour. However I am not sure and I do not know how I could make the #{link}
show in the portlet environment.
BTW is your fax number: +001 403 663 3320 (the 00 is suspect?!?) isn?t it +1 403
663 3320?
Take care,
Bernhard
Issue Links
- blocks
-
ICE-1809
Support for Liferay Portal
-
- Closed
-
Activity
- All
- Comments
- History
- Activity
- Remote Attachments
- Subversion
I've got two test cases but can't seem to attach them to this case for some reason.
test 1: porlets + Facelets not working
test 2: identical web app that's working
they're in \\server\Public\Users\philip\portlet
Earlier in our 1.6 DR #5 cycle I did have a Facelets version of TimeZone running successfully. However, in a single war deployment, we can only configure a single view handler so all the portlets in the archive must be either Facelets or not. For the JavaOne demos, we went without Facelets. Portlets based on Facelets may actually be working - simply requires some testing.
So I just test a Facelets version of TimeZone using ICEfaces DR #5 and Liferay 4.3.0 RC 1 and it works fine so I'm marking as fixed. There is still the issue of mixing Facelets and non-Facelets portlets if they are served from the same war but that is a separate issue and I will open a new case for that.
Assigning to Mark ... however there is a complex mixture of technologies that could warrant other
assignments. Note that this is of reasonably high priority because the customer is evaluating ICEfaces and
could be encouraged to purchase if their problems are resolved.