What I envisioned for Trinidad is namespacing the CSS file and loading
it outside of the head. Would something like that be a possibility for
Tomohawk? I mean I imagine any bridge would have this issue would it not?
Scott
Martin Marinschek wrote:
My guess is that Tomahawk won't run out of the box with this bridge -
problem: css-files needed by components won't be added to the head
properly.
regards,
Martin
On 8/17/07, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:-)
Yes, but I guess there might be some more impls out there,
like one that comes with the container ;-)
So, yes only one that goes with 301 (like this one ;-) )
-M
On 8/17/07, Scott O'Bryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Right. But for 1.2 and higher JSF implementations, you would not need
to use another bridge. This one should be the only one you'd need.
Scott
Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
yeah, sort of.
there are currently (mainly for JSF 1.1) tons of "JSF-Bridges"
-Apache MyFaces Core (not Tomahawk ;-) )
-Apache Portals Bridges (they have that for old school struts as well)
-Suns RI has a module for JSF-Portlet integration
-,,,
so, this one "fixes" that.
It's a standard
javax. .... and just an impl (that does what the papers want (or tries ;-) ))
-M
On 8/17/07, Alexander Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ok.. but with this bridge and the right version of myfaces you would
not need something like the tomahawk bridge any more...
thanks a bunch!
On Aug 17, 2007, at 10:54 AM, Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
there was no real tomahawk bridge.
that stuff is part of myfaces 1.1 (the core impl)
the difference here is that 301 specifies a way, how a JSF 1.2
application should work inside a portal.
for jsf 1.1 there was "just" a note like "JSF 1.1 should run in a
portlet..." (very simplified statement)
So, no not a replacement, "just" an IMPL of the java SPEC ;-)
On 8/17/07, Alexander Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Does this bridge replace Tomahawk bridge?
On Aug 17, 2007, at 10:39 AM, Scott O'Bryan wrote:
Sounds good to me. Should we open up a discussion though on
"where" this should be committed so that we can hit the ground
running once the paperwork is listed?
Scott
Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
On 8/17/07, Scott O'Bryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hey everyone. After tearing though the bureaucracy much slower
then I
would have liked, I uploaded the code to MYFACES-1664 for the
JSR-301
Portlet Bridge. This code should comply with the latest public
draft of
the JSR-301 specification and, once we figure out where to put
this and
get it made available in svn, I'd like to see people get their
hands on
it and try it out. It is going to change some things (for the
better I
hope), but if there are any unresolvable issues with it, my hope
is that
we can get those concerns voiced so that we can incorporate them
into
the final draft.
That said, what are our next steps?
we have to wait with the commit, until that the paperworks
(Schedule
B) is listed here:
http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html
-M
Scott
--
Matthias Wessendorf
further stuff:
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
--
Matthias Wessendorf
further stuff:
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
