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
