the RI-sources... Alexander
-----Original Message----- From: Manfred Geiler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 30, 2005 11:18 AM To: MyFaces Development Subject: Re: javax.faces.component.html package Which sources? The latest 1.0.9 release? Just downloaded and checked: Everything on it's place. Or did you mean the RI sources? -Manfred 2005/5/27, Jesse Alexander (KBSA 21) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Hi > > I "panicked" because in the downloadable JSF-sources that package contains > only a package.html but no sources. I double-checked just now: the class-files > are in the jar-file. > > Sorry > Alexander > > -----Original Message----- > From: Craig McClanahan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 10:01 AM > To: MyFaces Development > Subject: Re: javax.faces.component.html package > > On 5/27/05, Jesse Alexander (KBSA 21) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi > > > > I have a question about this package. I thought "javax.faces.*" package > > define the JSF API. And therefor those packages and classes should be > > available in all implementations. > > > > Yep, they should. > > > - MyFaces delivers this package which contains quite a few usefull classes > > in its myfaces-jsf-api.jar giving the impression that these are really > > API-classes. > > - In the JSF Reference Implementation this package is missing. > > > > Huh? The javax.faces.component.html classes are certainly part of > jsf-api.jar in the reference implementation. They are not found in > jsf-impl.jar precisely *because* they are required to be available in > any compatible implementation of JavaServer Faces. > > > Now is this a problem with the RI (which should also deliver it) > > or with MyFaces (which should not deliver it)? > > > > The classes in question live in jsf-api.jar of the RI. > > > > > I need to create components which can run under both implementations > > (our company has not yet decided which implementation to use) and > > every now and then one of the classes from this package slips in. > > > > Your compilation scripts should reference only the API jar file of > whichever implementation you want to use, so you can say things like > "public class MyCommandLink extends HtmlCommandLink" and have it work > with any implementation. If MyFaces doesn't include these classes in > its API jar, then that's a bug. > > > regards > > Alexander > > > > > > Craig >
