I think the point is that it's not yet in the spec like this -- it's just how the RI is currently implemented -- and now's the time to insure it doesn't go into the spec :) Implementing it this way in MyFaces is a step in the wrong direction for getting the behavior changed :)
On 12/5/05, Martin Marinschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 >
