For example, with the htmlEditor, when a new version of kupu is released, I can upgrade MyFaces' component with no problem for the current applications.
Without this filter, it would be a nightmare, as the needed _javascript_s changes (file names & content).
Another example is the calendar popup.
Moving to another implementation of the _javascript_ part (as we plan it) is a breeze. If the scripts had to be included in the clients applications it wouldn't be that easy.
On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 22:35 -0400, Sylvain Vieujot wrote:
Yes, I don't think we should split off MultipartFilter from ExtensionsFilter, for several reasons :
1) It will require to set 2 filters, which goes against the main purpose of this filter, that is to keep things simple.
2) A nice feature with the ExtensionsFilter would be to ensure that the form has enctype="multipart/form-data" when it contains a file upload component.
If the reason you want to do this is performance, did you do any benchmark ?
I would guess that the ExtensionsFilter doesn't impact performance a lot.
I even think it would rather improve the client overall response time as it includes the needed resources only when needed, and it (now) provides better client side caching.
For example, if you have a page with a tab panel, and many components on each tab, as you switch tab, it will only include the needed resources.
The only drawback of the filter is the in-memory buffering of the complete response, which is indeed a penalty for pages with no complex setup.
If you really need a MultipartFilter only, I rather recommend adding a disableExtensions attribute to this filter, the same way it's done for the uploadMaxFileSize attribute.
It keeps things simple while achieving the goal you have. Plus, it's very easy to do.
You could also leave the ExtensionsFilter as it is, and write a stripped down version, handling only the Multipart stuffs.
Anyway, I strongly think you should not oblige the user that still want to use the ExtensionsFilter to setup 2 filters (one for extensions and one for multipart).
If you want to include the disableExtensions filter parameter, just tell me, I can do that quickly.
Thanks,
Sylvain.
On Tue, 2005-03-15 at 02:50 +0100, Oliver Rossmueller wrote:So from my POV there is consensus to split off MultipartFilter from ExtensionsFilter as proposed but to keep ExtensionsFilter and give users the choice to use it. If I missed an argument against the split please let me know. Otherwise I'll do the split until the end of the week. Oliver Oliver Rossmueller wrote: > I'm no longer willing to pay the runtime penalty ExtensionFilter adds > to an application (_javascript_ files loaded over and over again, > in-memory buffering of the complete response) just for the benefit of > 10 minutes of saved developer time for adding the _javascript_ stuff to > the header of any jsf page. > > So my plan is to split up ExtensionFilter to MultipartFilter (in the > form it was before ExtensionFilter was introduced) and ExtensionFilter > (just dealing with extensions stuff). Actually I would like to drop > the extensions stuff completely as I don't see any benefit in having > this kind of filter at hand. We could create a myfaces-resources.jar > instead where we place all the image and _javascript_ resources so it's > easy to add all the resources to your war file by just adding a > zipfileset tag to your build file. > > Comments? Objections? > > Oliver >
