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 Adam that > once something becomes "official" in J2EE, there's no deprecating it > in the forseeable future, no matter how awful it is. As Jacob > commented, this approach is a hack, and I'd hate to see it become the > standard. > > 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 with it the way he did because no one else was happy with that > approach. > > On 12/5/05, Bruno Aranda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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 changes. > > > > Regards, > > > > Bruno > > > > [1] > > https://javaserverfaces-spec-public.dev.java.net/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=121 > > > -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
