Re: Scope provided of myfaces-impl and myfaces-api in tomahawk and sandbox?

[Bill Dudney]

FYI I did an update and deployed both simple & tiles. Simple worked fine (for the minimal clicking I did) but the tiles war failed on the welcome page http://localhost:8080/myfaces-example-tiles/page1.jsf Gave me; java.lang.NullPointerException org.apache.myfaces.application.jsp.JspTilesViewHandlerImpl.renderView(JspTilesViewHandlerImpl.java:165) org.apache.myfaces.lifecycle.LifecycleImpl.render(LifecycleImpl.java:372) javax.faces.webapp.FacesServlet.service(FacesServlet.java:138) org.apache.myfaces.component.html.util.ExtensionsFilter.doFilter(ExtensionsFilter.java:124) I'll take a look but it does not appear to be related to the changes in the pom. TTFN, Bill Dudney MyFaces - myfaces.apache.org Wadi - incubator.apache.org/wadi On Feb 16, 2006, at 10:09 AM, Sean Schofield wrote: OK I think runtime will work. Sean On 2/16/06, Manfred Geiler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ok, just committed the fixes. Did clean compile and some quick tests with resulting WARs. Simple and Sandbox examples seem ok now. Wap and Tiles seem to have some quirks that have nothing to do with my fixes. Details: 1. tomahawk: changed myfaces-impl dependency from compile to test (Ideally there should not be any dependency at all, but it's ok for our test classes to use impl code IMO) 2. tomahawk-examples-project: changed myfaces-impl dependency from compile to runtime 3. myfaces-example-simple and myfaces-example-wap: added commons-logging compile time dependency (was missing) 4. tomahawk-sandbox: added a TODO comment (there are compile time dependencies on myfaces-impl that have to get fixed) 5. tomahawk-sandbox-examples: changed myfaces-impl dependency from compile to runtime Manfred On 2/16/06, Manfred Geiler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: No, we don't want examples to depend on myfaces-impl during compile time. Yes, we want myfaces-impl to be included in the WAR. Therefore the correct scope is "runtime" instead of "compile" in this case. Manfred On 2/16/06, Sean Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Sorry meant to say we want those depend on the core.  There's no harm there (I think.) Sean On 2/16/06, Sean Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Wait a sec.  The examples are different.  We *want* those to depend on tomahawk and we want the dependencies to be included in the WAR. Sean On 2/16/06, Manfred Geiler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: No, there are still some quirks to be fixed. e.g. tomahawk examples must not have compile dependency to impl etc. I have already fixed most of this, but I want to make sure that everything builds fine and the wars contain every lib that's needed before I commit. Manfred On 2/16/06, Sean Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I think the dependencies are already the way we want them. Sean On 2/16/06, Manfred Geiler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ok, I will now fix all the tomahawk dependencies and do some tests. Stay tuned. Manfred On 2/15/06, Dennis Byrne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: How would we check if someone accidentally made a mistake and accessed impl in tomahawk? This has happened at least once but it was fixed, so +1 . Dennis Byrne