> Myfaces Core should not be dependent on a > commons library. It has an obligation to the TCK.
currently we have dependencies on some apache commons lib, that's fine, I think (we passed the TCK thing). Or did I got you wrong ? > > Unlike everyone else though, I don't like the "base" name. It implies that > other commons projects would be dependent on it. > > Scott > > > > On Apr 2, 2008, at 7:18 AM, Mario Ivankovits <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hi! > > > > > Orchestra having its own JspStateManagerImpl sounds "interesting" > > > though. Enabling this on Sun Mojarra for example will quite radically > > > change the way that a JSF app on Mojarra performs. That's not really > > > Orchestra's role. > > > > > > > > I thought about this like an optional feature one has to configure in > > their own faces-config.xml > > > > > > > What is *really* needed is for the StateManager spec to have some > > > mechanism to externalise the state, then have Orchestra override just > > > that. > > > > > +1 But that is not here yet! > > > > > > > Is it not possible to apply the "decorator" pattern to whatever > > > StateManager implementation the current JSF implementation provides? > > > > > > > > No, unfortunately, no! > > On the other hand, if you replace the state manager it should work with > > any other JSF impl too ... as long as it follows the standard by > > dispatching anything through the StateManager, no? > > > > Ciao, > > Mario > > > > > -- Matthias Wessendorf further stuff: blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
