have you installed the com.sun.facelets.FaceletViewHandler in faces-config? and which error did you get?
2010/2/11 Matthias Wessendorf <mat...@apache.org> > @ "javax.faces.DISABLE_FACELET_JSF_VIEWHANDLER" > > I tried (Glassfish v3) to deploy a JSF 1.2 application (with Facelets > 1.1.14) and that "javax.faces.DISABLE_FACELET_JSF_VIEWHANDLER" > parameter ==> true; > > I get an error there as well :-) > > -Matthias > > On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Jakob Korherr <jakob.korh...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > No I have not filed any bugs. Feel free to file them ;) > > > > Regards, > > Jakob > > > > 2010/2/10 Matthias Wessendorf <mat...@apache.org> > >> > >> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 10:44 AM, Ganesh <gan...@j4fry.org> wrote: > >> > IMHO the spec is very clear about this and the stuff in the appendix > is > >> > a > >> > spec bug. From the spec (10.1.2): > >> > > >> > A decision was made early in this process to strive for backwards > >> > compatibility between the latest popular version of Facelets and > >> > Facelets in > >> > JSF 2.0. The sole determinant to backwards compatibility lies in the > >> > answer > >> > to the question, “is there any Java code in the application, or in > >> > libraries > >> > used by the application, that extends from or depends on any class in > >> > package com.sun.facelets and/or its sub-packages?” > >> > ■ If the answer to this question is “yes”, Facelets in JSF 2.0 is not > >> > backwards compatibile with Facelets and such an application must > >> > continue to > >> > bundle the Facelets jar file along with the application, continue to > set > >> > the > >> > Facelets configuration parameters, and also set the > >> > javax.faces.DISABLE_FACELET_JSF_VIEWHANDLER > >> > <context-param> to true. Please see Section 11.1.3 “Application > >> > Configuration Parameters” for details on this > >> > option. Any code that extends or depends on any class in package > >> > com.sun.facelets and/or its sub-packages > >> > must be modified to depend on the appropriate classes in package > >> > javax.faces.webapp.vdl and/or its subpackages. > >> > >> yes (see previous email(s)) > >> > >> > >> > ■ If the answer to this question is “no”, Facelets in JSF 2.0 is > >> > backwards > >> > compatible with pre-JSF 2.0 Facelets and such an application must not > >> > continue to bundle the Facelets jar file along with the application, > and > >> > must not continue to set the Facelets configuration parameters. > >> > Thankfully, most applications that use Facelets fall into the latter > >> > category, or, if they fall in the former, their dependence will easily > >> > be > >> > migrated to the new public classes. > >> > >> ok. please; file a bug on that appendix thing. > >> > >> thjx > >> -m > >> > >> > > >> > Best regards, > >> > Ganesh > >> > > >> > Matthias Wessendorf schrieb: > >> >> > >> >> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 6:26 AM, Ganesh <gan...@j4fry.org> wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>> Many Facelets taglibs don't use Facelets tag handlers, > >> >>> but simply wrap some xhtml templates. Nothing will stop these > >> >>> libraries > >> >>> to > >> >>> work with MyFaces if we allow old version taglibs. > >> >>> If we insist on refusing them people will simply switch to Mojarra > to > >> >>> get > >> >>> their application to run. > >> >> > >> >> I know; that's what I meant with my comment before > >> >> > >> >>> The argument of a xsd:restriction in the spec will > >> >>> help little. Just > >> >>> taking old Facelets is *not* a solution, because the > >> >>> rest of the application may want to use the new features. > >> >>> Please try filing this as a bug to Mojarra as Matthias > >> >>> proposed - if they fix it, MyFaces may insist on version=2.0, but if > >> >>> they > >> >>> don't I think we shouldn't > >> >>> either. > >> >> > >> >> I agree > >> >> > >> >>> I've carried the question whether a JSF 2.0 compatible > implementation > >> >>> is > >> >>> required to refuse old version facelets taglibs into the EG - let's > >> >>> see, > >> >>> what they have to say > >> >> > >> >> technically, I think now we are correct. > >> >> > >> >> @Jakob: Did you create such a bug against the RI ? > >> >> (that they allow "old" Facelets) maybe another on > >> >> not being (too) clear in the spec about it... > >> >> -Matthias > >> >> > >> >>> on this ... > >> >>> > >> >>> Best regards, > >> >>> Ganesh > >> >>>> > >> >>>> I see both ways; I think I don't like the fact that the RI has this > >> >>>> "bug" > >> >>>> :) > >> >>>> So, end of the story is, almost everybody will blame this to us ;-) > >> >>>> "Oh, crappy MyFaces doesn't work" etc :) All the FUD! :) > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Matthias Wessendorf > >> > >> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ > >> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf > >> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf > > > > > > > > -- > Matthias Wessendorf > > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ > sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf > twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf >
