Martin Marinschek schrieb: > Hi Simon, > > the three of us (Leonardo, you, me) discussed this in our > component-generation discussion. > > @use of 1.2 constructs: yes, you are right, it should not use any 1.2 > constructs (at a maximum - with reflection, so that we stay > independent). Facelets does something similar. We need a 1.2 version > however for the tags - they are just too different. But thankfully, > those will be generated. There is one thing which I want to have: > invokeOnComponent can be called, and it should be called for the > AJAX-callback. > > @use of the 1.2 version: wouldn't you want to indicate to the > community that this component library is now 1.2 compliant? For JSP > 2.1 containers, you will indeed need the new tag-files, if you are not > using Facelets (AFAIK)! > So all code except tag classes will be JSF1.1-compliant? And then we generate different tag classes and tld files for two different flavours of Tomahawk (jsf11, jsf12) ?
I'm not quite sure why you say that new tag-classes and tld-files are needed; I have run tomahawk on MyFaces 1.2 without difficulty, using JSP pages. Just see the Orchestra examples. However I'm also quite happy with what you describe above. As long as there remains one trunk for all the components that is fine. Having one template for jsf11 tag classes and a different one for jsf12 tag classes is no big deal to manage. Just to clarify: you intend to use the SAME template for component/renderer generation for both JSF11 and JSF12? And use the same hand-written component parent classes when generating JSF11 and JSF12? The invokeOnComponent thing sounds ok, as long as it can be reasonably isolated from the majority of the code; as you say, that really is useful to have. Cheers, Simon
