Hello Jakob, I'm not really sure that this feature should be part of myfaces-core. Maybe myfaces-commons would be a better place. But we can change this later.
+1 on commiting the module. Regards Bernd On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 4:32 PM, Jakob Korherr <jakob.korh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Jan-Kees, > > Great :) > > I am currently testing on Tomcat, Jetty, GlassFish v3 and JBoss 6! > > Regards, > Jakob > > 2010/3/6 Jan-Kees van Andel <jankeesvanan...@gmail.com> >> >> Hey, >> >> If it works on Jetty and Tomcat, I'd say +1 on committing the module. >> >> I can't think of big issues with committing it as a separate module. And >> we can always revert if we have to. >> >> Cool, can't wait to check it out! On what appserver are you testing this >> stuff Jakob? >> >> Regards, >> Jan-Kees >> >> >> 2010/3/6 Jakob Korherr <jakob.korh...@gmail.com> >>> >>> Hi guys, >>> >>> I managed to introduce the core submodule "implee6" on my local machine. >>> This new submodule includes Java EE 6 dependencies and thus you can use >>> Servlet API 3.0 and other new things in it. >>> >>> When building MyFaces, this new submodule is built before the normal impl >>> submodule. Then the .class and the .java files are "injected" into the >>> impl-build. This is very similar to how shared_impl is included in the >>> myfaces-impl build at the moment, but without recompilation. >>> >>> In this way we are able to use the new services approach of Java EE 6 to >>> get rid of the Faces Servlet entries in web.xml, because in any Java EE 6 >>> container we can configure this dynamically at startup (see MYFACES-2579 for >>> details). This also works fantastically on my local machine - it's really >>> cool! >>> >>> Also with this method we are still Java EE 5 complaint, because the EE 6 >>> classes just won't get loaded in a non EE 6 environment, because there are >>> no dependencies from impl or shared to them. They are only called (and >>> loaded) by a Java EE 6 container via the services definition. >>> >>> Furthermore I noticed that the Mojarra guys also include a similar >>> solution to this in their newest build! >>> >>> Now, before I commit something of this, I wanted to ask if there are any >>> objections with this proposal. If so, please tell me your concerns! >>> >>> Regards, >>> Jakob >> > >
