I dont think it will conflict, the reason for this is, I want to add the
option as web.xml override.
Which means a user who wants to use the groovy bindings has to add a
context param. If this param is not set nothing is done and the code
defaults to the code currently in existence.
The groovy bindings are a plugin like extval.
Werner
Leonardo Uribe schrieb:
Hi
+1. I suppose this code conflict with MYFACES-2290 Add OSGi bundle
information and bundle classloader / activator, but we can see it in
deep later when we have committed this one.
regards
Leonardo Uribe
2009/8/11 Matthias Wessendorf <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
+1 for adding that to 2.0 only.
looking forward :-)
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 10:17 PM, Werner Punz<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> Hello everyone. I am sort of overdue with my promised commit of
the myfaces
> groovy bindings, the reason simply was life itself.
>
> Anway to make things finally clear I want to propose following.
> I want to commit the bindings this week, but I want to opt for
myfaces 2.0
> instead of still going with 1.2.
>
> The reason simply is following:
> I need to add a mechanism which allows to replace the classloader
> during initialisation which means following we have to add code
> to our initialisation code in our servlet context which allows this.
> Now that 2.0 still is in development this is less critical than
to add it to
> a stable 1.2.
>
> And to be honest I do not want to support two versions of myfaces
for the
> initial stage.
> So here is the deal, I will commit the codebase this week, which
still has
> the dirty initialisation and add the needed extensions asap in
the 2.0
> codebase and I will work on make it running so that we have the
extension up
> and running when we hit final, sort of a goody to have
> if you use myfaces.
>
> Werner
>
>
>
>
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
