Hi
2010/12/6 Ivan <[email protected]>
So, at least could you please help to add the export the
> org.apache.myfaces.config package in 2.0.3, that will make my life easier
> now. And remove it once those methods are moved to
> FacesConfigurationProvider in the future.
>
Instead do that, it is better to add them now. (I committed it on
MYFACES-2945) It is a change already studied, so I don't see any problem
doing it. I did some small changes too, so it could be good if you try it to
see if everything is ok (I'll wait for your response) .
2010/12/7 David Jencks <[email protected]>
>
>
> I have not compared the myfaces classes with the openejb jaxb tree for
> faces-config.xml, so I have no idea how plausible this idea might be. Would
> it be possible to annotate the myfaces object tree representing
> faces-config.xml so that it could be read in by jaxb as well as by digester?
>
> For use in geronimo, I wonder if putting some or all of this code in a
> fragment bundle hosted by the myfaces bundle would reduce the number of
> exports needed.
>
>
I don't think so, because do that requires to add a dependency to jaxb on
myfaces impl, and we have one xml library dependency already
(commons-digester).
regards,
Leonardo URibe
> thanks
> david jencks
>
>
> For item b, I created a sub classes of DefaultFacesConfigurationProvider,
> and just overrides those get*** methods, the class is look like :
> --->
> public class GeronimoFacesConfigurationProvider extends
> DefaultFacesConfigurationProvider {
>
> private FacesConfig annotationsFacesConfig;
>
> private List<FacesConfig> classloaderFacesConfigs;
>
> private List<FacesConfig> contextSpecifiedFacesConfigs;
>
> private FacesConfig webAppFacesConfig;
>
> private FacesConfig standardFacesConfig;
>
> public GeronimoFacesConfigurationProvider(FacesConfig
> standardFacesConfig, FacesConfig webAppFacesConfig, FacesConfig
> annotationsFacesConfig, List<FacesConfig> classloaderFacesConfigs,
> List<FacesConfig> contextSpecifiedFacesConfigs) {
> this.annotationsFacesConfig = annotationsFacesConfig;
> this.classloaderFacesConfigs = classloaderFacesConfigs;
> this.contextSpecifiedFacesConfigs = contextSpecifiedFacesConfigs;
> this.webAppFacesConfig = webAppFacesConfig;
> this.standardFacesConfig = standardFacesConfig;
> }
>
> @Override
> protected FacesConfig getAnnotationsFacesConfig(ExternalContext ectx,
> boolean metadataComplete) {
> return annotationsFacesConfig;
> }
>
> @Override
> protected List<FacesConfig> getClassloaderFacesConfig(ExternalContext
> externalContext) {
> return classloaderFacesConfigs;
> }
>
> @Override
> protected List<FacesConfig>
> getContextSpecifiedFacesConfig(ExternalContext externalContext) {
> return contextSpecifiedFacesConfigs;
> }
>
> @Override
> protected FacesConfig getStandardFacesConfig(ExternalContext
> externalContext) {
> return standardFacesConfig;
> }
>
> @Override
> protected FacesConfig getWebAppFacesConfig(ExternalContext
> externalContext) {
> return webAppFacesConfig;
> }
>
> }
> <---
> Thoughts ?
> thanks.
>
> 2010/12/7 Leonardo Uribe <[email protected]>
>
>> Hi
>>
>> First of all, I want to note that if the default algorithm for
>> FacesConfigResourceProvider is not able to find a.faces-config.xml and
>> c.faces-config.xml, that means the Thread Context Class Loader needs to be
>> fixed, because is not taking into account jar files under WEB-INF/lib.
>>
>> 2010/12/6 Ivan <[email protected]>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2010/12/6 David Jencks <[email protected]>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Dec 5, 2010, at 7:44 PM, Ivan wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > I am wondering whether the myfaces bundle could also export the
>>>> spi.impl package, I hope to take advantage of some codes there, e.g.
>>>> DefaultFacesConfigurationProvider, it contains some sort algorithm.
>>>> > thanks.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>> Why export spi.impl package? the idea to have an spi api and impl is allow
>> impl package to change and let api stable to prevent break code later,
>> right? If something should be exposed from DefaultFacesConfigurationProvider
>> (for example adding some methods on FacesConfigurationProvider), it should
>> be discussed first.
>>
>> I agree to expose this two:
>>
>>
>> +
>> org.apache.myfaces.config.impl.digester.elements;version="${project.version}",
>> +
>> org.apache.myfaces.config.impl.digester;version="${project.version}
>>
>> because theorically the code there will not change (only between different
>> versions of JSF), but the other ones:
>>
>>
>> +
>> org.apache.myfaces.spi.impl;version="${project.version}",
>> +
>> org.apache.myfaces.config;version="${project.version}",
>>
>> needs some argumentation first.
>>
>>
>>> I'd say if you need to expose the default implementation of the spi
>>>> then there is something wrong with the interface design. If the sorting is
>>>> universal then perhaps it should not be in a class implemented by a service
>>>> provider?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Ok, as long as I undersand there is no reason why expose sorting algorithm
>> to the container. Also, allow a different parser for FacesConfig was
>> discussed before. I remember on MYFACES-2945 that it was proposed an
>> interface with this methods:
>>
>> public abstract class FacesConfigurationProvider
>> {
>> public abstract FacesConfig getStandardFacesConfig(ExternalContext
>> ectx);
>>
>> public abstract FacesConfig
>> getMetaInfServicesFacesConfig(ExternalContext ectx);
>>
>> public abstract FacesConfig getAnnotationsFacesConfig(ExternalContext
>> ectx, boolean metadataComplete);
>>
>> public abstract List<FacesConfig>
>> getClassloaderFacesConfig(ExternalContext ectx);
>>
>> public abstract List<FacesConfig>
>> getContextSpecifiedFacesConfig(ExternalContext ectx);
>>
>> public abstract FacesConfig getWebAppFacesConfig(ExternalContext
>> ectx);
>>
>> }
>>
>> But finally the final form was this:
>>
>> public abstract class FacesConfigurationProvider
>> {
>>
>> public abstract FacesConfigData getFacesConfigData(ExternalContext
>> ectx);
>>
>> }
>>
>> And this comment was added:
>>
>> "...After some attempts, the structure of the solution is not too
>> different from the previous patch, because after all in
>> DefaultFacesConfigurationProvider it is necessary to put all previous code
>> plus ordering and feeding of FacesConfig files...."
>>
>> Note the first form allows to define an custom parser, because to retrieve
>> FacesConfig you should locate them first and then parse them, but the second
>> one does not.
>>
>> Yes, in Geronimo, we have a sepearted algorthim for sorting. Currently,
>>> I still use the implementation from MyFaces to do it, maybe in the future I
>>> could move them to Geronimo side or it will be abstracted from current
>>> default spi provider. I also need to provide a mock external context to make
>>> it work. or I might need to copy some codes from myfaces.
>>> Another thing is that, I use the digester xml parser from MyFaces to
>>> parse all the faces configuration files, while we using jaxb tree in the
>>> past. This could be avoid, just did not want to add some codes to convert
>>> two FacesConfig objects.
>>>
>>
>> The idea behind refactor org.apache.myfaces.config.element package is give
>> some base classes from myfaces, to allow use a different parser. Those
>> changes were committed, but to allow that it is still necessary to commit
>> some methods on FacesConfigurationProvider to do the "bridge".
>>
>> regards,
>>
>> Leonardo Uribe
>>
>> Thanks.
>>>
>>>
>>>> thanks
>>>> david jencks
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> > --
>>>> > Ivan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ivan
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Ivan
>
>
>
