Well, we can definitely not add a public field to the API which is not specified. The question is only if maybe the RI added some public field which was not specified - then this could be a spec bug.
regards, Martin On 10/20/09, Matthias Wessendorf <[email protected]> wrote: > I think the question is why there isn't a helper like > BeanValidation.isBeanValidation() specified ? > Implementation could be somewhat similar to what MyFaces > does today. But I wonder why this wasn't done... > > -M > > On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 9:14 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <[email protected]> > wrote: >> Hi, >> >> in order to work on Trinidad 2.0 and 303 support (yeah need to check >> what Gerhard did for extVal) I >> took a quick look at the UIInput. >> >> I noticed a few lines containing a call like this: >> >> => BeanValidator.isAvailable >> >> This is a public field which is only there in MyFaces, not in the JSF >> 2.0 API ([1]). >> >> I know that the entire handling of checking if there is a JSR 303 >> implementation is >> a little bit ugly, but I am not sure if we should introduce such a >> "public" field to the >> BeanValidator validator class. >> >> => wouldn't be good if extensions would start to rely on this field; I >> guess not there on the RI ;-) >> => does this violate the TCK ? Or would it be ? I am not sure here >> two, as it is a public field >> >> Maybe we should make the make the check become a private thing ? >> >> -Matthias >> >> >> [1] http://java.sun.com/javaee/javaserverfaces/2.0/docs/api/index.html >> >> -- >> Matthias Wessendorf >> >> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ >> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf >> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf >> > > > > -- > Matthias Wessendorf > > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ > sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf > twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf > -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
