Hi, Since there don't seem to be any big concerns about this, I will now commit the new submodule "implee6".
Regards, Jakob 2010/3/8 Gerhard Petracek <[email protected]> > +1 > > regards, > gerhard > > http://www.irian.at > > Your JSF powerhouse - > JSF Consulting, Development and > Courses in English and German > > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces > > > 2010/3/8 Werner Punz <[email protected]> > > +1 for that idea, the less configuration the better. >> >> Werner >> >> >> Am 07.03.10 15:44, schrieb Jakob Korherr: >> >>> I think we don't even need such a parameter, because the idea is that >>> the listener just does nothing if there are already entries for the >>> FacesServlet in web.xml! >>> >>> Regards, >>> Jakob >>> >>> 2010/3/7 Jan-Kees van Andel <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> >>> >>> >>> Agreed, I was only thinking of one parameter: A parameter to turn >>> the entire StartupListener off. >>> >>> I look at it as a binary thing. Either the developer chooses to go >>> with the flow with no custimization, OR he chooses to customize >>> everything. >>> >>> I.e. org.apache.myfaces.DISABLE_FACES_SERVLET_AUTODEPLOY = true >>> (default false) >>> >>> I think this will cover all use cases, where some may require a bit >>> more configuration, but still work... >>> >>> /JK >>> >>> >>> 2010/3/7 Jakob Korherr <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> >>> >>> >>> Yep! >>> >>> We can discuss this stuff when the submodule is in place. Such >>> things are very easy to change/configure in the StartupListener. >>> >>> However, I think we should come up with a very standard default >>> configuration. If the user wants something different, he will >>> have to configure the mapping himself in the web.xml just as it >>> is now. I am not a fan of too many configuration parameters >>> which interfere with other configuration methods. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Jakob >>> >>> 2010/3/7 Jan-Kees van Andel <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> >>> >>> >>> In other words: Convention over configuration ;-) >>> >>> I just think it's important to pick sensible defaults and to >>> be able to turn it off, for example using a context-param. >>> >>> For example, I think the mapping *.xhtml should also be >>> default, but a developer must be able to turn *.xhtml off, >>> since it's a widely used extension also outside of JSF... >>> >>> Regards, >>> Jan-Kees >>> >>> >>> 2010/3/7 Jakob Korherr <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> >>> >>> >>> 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] >>> <mailto:[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] >>> <mailto:[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] >>> <mailto:[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] >>> <mailto:[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] >>> <mailto:[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] >>> <mailto:[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 >>> >> >> >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> > >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >
