@Sean, today, I'll try to spare an hour to think about that resources issue again. I still hope to find a solution ;)
regards, Martin On 1/7/06, Martin Marinschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yes, but until then, the clear winner is what makes it easiest to the > user, and that's Bernd's suggestion, right? > > the thing ought to work out of the box. > > regards, > > Martin > > On 1/6/06, Adam Winer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > And, once we get to JSF 1.2, "provided" is a clear > > winner because web containers will need to provide a JSF > > implementation. > > > > -- Adam > > > > > > On 1/6/06, Wendy Smoak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 1/6/06, Adam Winer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > Anything that's a compile time dependency of library Foo > > > > where a user of Foo is responsible for supplying that dependency > > > > should be declared "provided". > > > > > > The Maven team usually puts it as "... can reasonably be expected to > > > be provided at runtime." But Maven 2.0 doesn't have anything in place > > > to deal with the "choice of implementations" situation, and so > > > 'provided' is probably the best bet. > > > > > > This will put the responsibility of choosing an implementation on the > > > user-- either by declaring a dependency or installing it in the > > > container. (Or, I suppose, by using a container that already provides > > > it.) I think that's reasonable. > > > > > > -- > > > Wendy > > > > > > > > -- > > http://www.irian.at > > Your JSF powerhouse - > JSF Consulting, Development and > Courses in English and German > > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces > -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
