So you prefer to keep a rather UGLY behaviour, th eone where you never
can be
sure in which sequence the jar-files are processed?

It just makes it almost impossible to use a set of custom-components
from external 
companies, if you need to override a renderer for example...

I'd rather have the akward solution than chaos as it is right now...

regards
Alexander

PS: I prefer the solution because i already have hit that wall. It was
impossible to override
a tomahawk renderer, because of this erronous (because not
deterministic) behaviour... 

-----Original Message-----
From: 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 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 workaround is only in JSF 1.2 anyway, and not JSF
1.1, so any solution we create under MyFaces is going to be different 
(or "incompatible") with JSF RI 1.1's loading scheme.

However, it's open source, so whoever's doing the work is going to
determine the initial behavior. :)

On 12/5/05, Ed Burns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > 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.
>
> As I said previously, I just put this in the Sun impl
> because we had a short term need for a deterministic
> approach to loadine META-INF/faces-config.xml files.
> I agree it's not the best approach but you must agree
> that it is unobtrusive.  I only intend it to be used
> in a pinch, anyway.
>
> Ed
>
>
>
> __________________________________________
> Yahoo! DSL - Something to write home about.
> Just $16.99/mo. or less.
> dsl.yahoo.com
>
>

Reply via email to