+1 for removing the static. What is about java.util.logging? Can/Should we use it for 1.2?
IMO it is better to use java.util.logging. Apart from the unusable default implementation for java.util.logging the reason not to use it in myfaces 1.1 was the dependency to java 1.4. But jsf 1.2 will only run with java 5 or higher. So that should not be the problem now. The default implementation should also not be a problem. IMO it is out of scope of myfaces. The container vendor is responsible to supply a better solution as it is done for tomcat. And even if that is not the case the user might plug its own implementation into java.util.logging. 2007/2/27, Dennis Byrne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
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
-- Mathias
