PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 05, 2005 9:18 PM
To: MyFaces Development
Subject: Re: Require ordering of for loading META-INF/faces-config.xml
files from component jar
Ed, I understand that you needed a short-term workaround, and I'm
overjoyed to hear you confirm to others that it's
, December 06, 2005 1:58 AM
To: MyFaces Development
Subject: Re: Require ordering of for loading META-INF/faces-config.xml
files from component jar
Adam Winer wrote:
Yes, the desire for a real solution and the permanence of anything
that does get into the spec was the reason why we deep-sixed
any hacky
Hi *,
I've just talked with Ed Burns in IRC and he has told me that he has
implemented the ordering of the loading of the config files [1]. He
has attached the implementation there for ideas.
I am not sure, but this is one of the JSF1.2 things that we could
implement without having to do major
Yes, no one was.
It's a workaround, but it's awkward at least.
Still, it's better than nothing, and if it is in the Spec like this,
we'll need to implement it.
regards,
Martin
On 12/5/05, Mike Kienenberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-1 for doing it this way. We've already heard from Ed and
I think the point is that it's not yet in the spec like this -- it's
just how the RI is currently implemented -- and now's the time to
insure it doesn't go into the spec :) Implementing it this way in
MyFaces is a step in the wrong direction for getting the behavior
changed :)
On 12/5/05, Martin
--- Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Yes, no one was.
It's a workaround, but it's awkward at least.
Still, it's better than nothing, and if it is in the
Spec like this,
we'll need to implement it.
To be clear, this isn't in the spec. The resolution
of this issue in the JSF
At the time of the original discussion, we
proposed better ways of
handling this which should be archived in the
mailing list. (I think
Martin and Craig were also involved at the time,
and we hammered out a
reasonable dependency-handling approach). I'm not
really sure why Ed
went
Ed, I understand that you needed a short-term workaround, and I'm
overjoyed to hear you confirm to others that it's not in the spec this
way.
I still think our time (the Myfaces committers' time) would be better
spent creating a full solution rather than implementing the
workaround. The
Kienenberger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 05, 2005 9:18 PM
To: MyFaces Development
Subject: Re: Require ordering of for loading META-INF/faces-config.xml
files from component jar
Ed, I understand that you needed a short-term workaround, and I'm
overjoyed to hear you confirm to others
, December 05, 2005 9:18 PM
To: MyFaces Development
Subject: Re: Require ordering of for loading META-INF/faces-config.xml
files from component jar
Ed, I understand that you needed a short-term workaround, and I'm
overjoyed to hear you confirm to others that it's not in the spec this
way.
I still
: Mike Kienenberger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 05, 2005 9:18 PM
To: MyFaces Development
Subject: Re: Require ordering of for loading META-INF/faces-config.xml
files from component jar
Ed, I understand that you needed a short-term workaround, and I'm
overjoyed to hear you
:18 PM
To: MyFaces Development
Subject: Re: Require ordering of for loading META-INF/faces-config.xml
files from component jar
Ed, I understand that you needed a short-term workaround, and I'm
overjoyed to hear you confirm to others that it's not in the spec this
way.
I still think
Yes, the desire for a real solution and the permanence of anything
that does get into the spec was the reason why we deep-sixed
any hacky fix. A lot of times - in the world of long-living specs -
doing nothing is by far the best solution.
I do think that Ed has a point that MyFaces would do well
Sounds good to me!
especially a solution where we don't need a new type of configuration
file would be great ;)
regards,
Martin
On 12/6/05, Adam Winer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, the desire for a real solution and the permanence of anything
that does get into the spec was the reason why we
Adam Winer wrote:
Yes, the desire for a real solution and the permanence of anything
that does get into the spec was the reason why we deep-sixed
any hacky fix. A lot of times - in the world of long-living specs -
doing nothing is by far the best solution.
I do think that Ed has a point that
Mike Kienenberger wrote:
In the jar's MANIFEST.MF file, create two new attributes, similar to
the standard jar Class-Path: attribute. These as-of-yet-unnamed
attributes would represent the two relationships above.
For those jars that don't specify a dependency order, JSF would fall
back to
Mike,
For reference sake, do you have a use case for:
* If component library BAR is used in this app, make sure that
I am initialized before it is
The converse is obvious and common, but I don't have anything at
my fingertips for this one; it certainly doesn't surprise me that this
would
17 matches
Mail list logo
