Hi Bernd,

For some users it may be so ;) :D

Look Bernd, it's not that big thing. It's just a class and a text file. So
it is by no means a problem to ship this with MyFaces Core 2. Also Mojarra
does something similar too!

To your question: Nope! I just add the FacesServlet and the standard
mappings /faces/*, *.jsf and maybe also *.faces, if there are no entries for
the FacesServlet in the web.xml. If a user wants something special, he do
will have to configure it in his web.xml. In this scenario my
StartupListener will just do nothing.

Regards,
Jakob

2010/3/6 Bernd Bohmann <[email protected]>

> Hello Jakob,
>
> do you really think adding an other dependency is a real problem?
> How do you configure prefix or suffix mapping? For each possible
> configuration option an own impl version?
>
> Regards
>
> Bernd
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 4:48 PM, Jakob Korherr <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > Hi Bernd,
> >
> > If this module wouldn't be a part of myfaces core, the users still would
> > have to configure something to run their MyFaces-2 apps in a EE6
> container
> > (e.g. they'd have to include myfaces commons), which is not the target.
> The
> > target is to get rid of any unnecessary configuration to make the
> > development process easier!
> >
> > Regards,
> > Jakob
> >
> > 2010/3/6 Bernd Bohmann <[email protected]>
> >>
> >> 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 <[email protected]>
> >> 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 <[email protected]>
> >> >>
> >> >> 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 <[email protected]>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> 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
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >
> >
>

Reply via email to