Scott,
Well I sort of assumed that people wanting configurations outside of the
standard supported J2EE configuration would compile the branch themselves.
And this is document where :)
http://myfaces.apache.org/trinidad/trinidad-1_2/FAQ.html
http://myfaces.apache.org/trinidad/trinidad-1_2/trinidad-demo/index.html
I am of the opinion that a demo/example should run as distributed and
the installation should be intuitive. In this case the distribution is
build for a J2EE environment, but it is not obvious to anyone installing it.
Paul Spencer
Scott O'Bryan wrote:
Well I sort of assumed that people wanting configurations outside of the
standard supported J2EE configuration would compile the branch themselves.
Scott
Paul Spencer wrote:
Scott,
If the Demo includes JSTL, will it work on a J2EE server?
( I suspect the server will/should complain when 2 copies/version of
JSTL exists )
If not then when should distribute :
A) J2EE version and non-J2EE version of Example.zip/tar.gz
or
B) Example.zip/tar.gz containing a J2EE and non-J2EE version of
trinidad-demo.war and trinidad-blank.war
Paul Spencer
Scott O'Bryan wrote:
IMO this isn't necessary. We already control whether we deploy the
myfaces jars using a profile. Can't we add a profile which includes
the JSTL jars in the demo when it's built? Also, it should be easy
enough to add them to tomcat as a shared library as well.
Scott
Paul Spencer wrote:
The current Trinidad demo will not work in a non-J2EE container,
i.e. Tomcat 6.0, because it does not contain the JSTL jar. Should
we add a non-J2EE demo to the distribution?
I would say yes because it simplifies the process of getting the
demo running in an not-J2EE environment.
Paul Spencer
