Hello,

what is the alternative?

How is this handled by the RI?

What is the performance impakt?

Why not a container can separate each jsf webapp with a separate classloader? Independent of the jsf implementation is provided by the container or not.

Can we remove commons logging and use jdk logging or something else?

Without any technical discussion you get my

-1

Regards

Bernd




Cagatay Civici wrote:
+1 non-binding

On 2/27/07, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

+1


On 2/27/07, Mike Kienenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +1
>
> On 2/26/07, Dennis Byrne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Alright.  Here's my +1 binding.  Let's put the nail in this coffin.
> >
> > Dennis Byrne
> >
> > On 2/26/07, Paul McMahan < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Excellent observation, Dennis.  In Geronimo and a few other app
> > > servers I am familiar with the user is provided with several knobs
> > > that can affect classloading.  Ideally, a component designed to run
in
> > > different types of containers would make as few assumptions about
its
> > > container's classloader configuration as possible.  For example,
> > > Geronimo's classloaders can have multiple immediate parents which
> > > confuses code that thinks it can find resources (like TLDs) in the
> > > app's classloader by walking up a direct lineage of classloaders
using
> > > getParent().  And like you say, factories and services like logging
> > > can get confused when they key on classes that are available from
> > > multiple classloaders.
> > >
> > > Another item somewhat related to this discussion that comes to mind
is
> > > how Geronimo provides a shared instance of the Dojo toolkit in a
> > > preinstalled webapp that is deployed at the context
"/dojo".  Webapps
> > > can of course include their own private copy of the Dojo toolkit in
> > > their WAR but they miss out on several benefits such as improved
> > > resource caching across application contexts, smaller application
> > > footprint, and having the ability to upgrade and otherwise manage
the
> > > Dojo component separately from their webapp.  I thought this might
be
> > > interesting to those working on Dojo/MyFaces integration.
> > >
> > > Best wishes,
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > On 2/26/07, Dennis Byrne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >     Since JSF is part of the JEE 5 spec users don't need to
include the
> > > >
> > > > > JSF jars or their dependencies in their webapps when deploying
into
> > > > > Geronimo 2.0.  This makes developing a webapp much easier but
makes
> > > > > developing JSF a little more tricky because the MyFaces jars are
part
> > > > > of the server runtime.
> > > >
> > > > Hi Paul,
> > > >
> > > > On this team there is an age old debate about how logging.  The
gist is
> > that
> > > > we have static loggers all over the place.  This of course is not
good
> > > > because the jars are not going to be located in the war (where
they are
> > > > isolated by separate class loaders).
> > > >
> > > > Well, team ... we've never had a better reason to rip out the
static
> > > > loggers.  What do you say?
> > > >
> > > > > Best wishes,
> > > > > Paul
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 2/26/07, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > geronimo2-SNAPSHOT
> > > > > >
> > > > > > you don't need to include the jsf-xxx jars
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A Java EE 5 compliant server has to ignore the jsf-xxx libs,
shipped
> > > > > > in WEB-INF/lib
> > > > > > Since Tomcat 6.x and Jetty 6.x don't ship JSF, you have to
include
> > > > > > them in your lib, like in the past
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -M
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 2/26/07, Martin Haimberger < [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > > > > > > Sorry for spamming, but is there another Application Server
which
> > will
> > > > > > > work with MyFaces 1.2 and Intellij Idea ?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > Martin Haimberger
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 2/26/07, Martin Haimberger < [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > No nothing more. No Exception, nothing. I will try
Jetty6.1.x, i
> > > > hope
> > > > > > > > the myfaces1.2 will start.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > Martin Haimberger
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 2/26/07, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >
wrote:
> > > > > > > > > does the tomcat log say more?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I am able to deploy a jsf 1.2 app with Jetty6.1.x
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > -M
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On 2/26/07, Martin Haimberger <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Hy *,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > i am going to help to develop myfaces 1.2. I have
checked it
> > > > out,
> > > > > > > > > > compiled it (with some difficulties, because some jars
were
> > not
> > > > > > > > > > found). I installed tomcat 6.0.9 alpha and i got this
error:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > DEBUG [main] ( HtmlRenderKitImpl.java:112) - add
Renderer
> > family
> > > > =
> > > > > > > > > > javax.faces.SelectOne rendererType = javax.faces.Radio
> > renderer
> > > > class
> > > > > > > > > > =
> > > > org.apache.myfaces.renderkit.html.HtmlRadioRenderer
> > > > > > > > > >   INFO [main] (FacesConfigurator.java:972) -
Serialization
> > > > provider :
> > > > > > > > > > class
> > > >
> > org.apache.myfaces.shared_impl.util.serial.DefaultSerialFactory
> > > > > > > > > > Feb 26, 2007 2:14:34 PM
> > > > org.apache.catalina.core.StandardContext start
> > > > > > > > > > SEVERE: Error listenerStart
> > > > > > > > > > Feb 26, 2007 2:14:34 PM
> > > > org.apache.catalina.core.StandardContext start
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I am running Intellij 6.0.4 and tomcat 6.0.9 on
MacOsX.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Has someone any idea what i did wrong?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > Martin Haimberger
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > Matthias Wessendorf
> > > > > > > > > http://tinyurl.com/fmywh
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > further stuff:
> > > > > > > > > blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
> > > > > > > > > mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Matthias Wessendorf
> > > > > > http://tinyurl.com/fmywh
> > > > > >
> > > > > > further stuff:
> > > > > > blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
> > > > > > mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Dennis Byrne
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Dennis Byrne
>


--
Matthias Wessendorf
http://tinyurl.com/fmywh

further stuff:
blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com


Reply via email to