hi kamil, imo it would be useful, if you provide an overview of the most important parts. (fyi: we can't change APIs in the package javax.faces.*)
regards, gerhard http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces 2011/7/26 Kamil Soboń <[email protected]> > How detailed our proposal should be ? We should point every place that we > consider to be changed ? Or it will be enough to write in detailed way, what > we wanted to solve, what we have done and where are the problems ? > > Pozdrawiam, > Kamil Soboń > > iso.poczta(at)gmail.com > sobon(at)student.agh.edu.pl > > Dnia 26-07-2011 o godz. 19:43 Mike Kienenberger <[email protected]> > napisał(a): > > > This is the right place for your questions and proposals. > > > > We cannot tell you anything further until we see the proposals and > details. > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 1:35 PM, Kamil Soboń <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hi all, > >> > >> Me and my friend are trying to create modular web application that will > work > >> in OSGi environment. > >> We have chosen JSF (MyFaces implementation) for our web tier (In fact we > >> have chosen this technology in first version of our application, where > we > >> have implemented own mechanism for plug-in management, now we want to > use > >> OSGi). > >> > >> We have few very important assumption for web tier: views (pages), > resources > >> and manageable beans can be provided, changed and taken away in > run-time. > >> This is a result of other assumption: our application should be > modularized > >> in plug-ins that can be installed, updated or uninstalled in run-time. > >> There are few problems with MyFaces that we were trying to omit. Some we > >> have managed to, some partially and some not. I am not going to tell > about > >> the details, but I can tell about them or provide web site urls where we > >> have written down our cogitations. > >> > >> After some time we have reached a conclusion that it is pointless to > make > >> MyFaces working as we want to, without changing things in core > >> implementation. Generally we know what should be reimplemented or > redesigned > >> in core implementation of MyFaces. We believe that some of changes > should be > >> done in API to make MyFaces more flexible. Once more I am not going to > tell > >> about the details here (but fell free to ask). > >> > >> My questions are > >> Is it our proposal worth of consideration ? Maybe out assumptions break > down > >> some JavaServer Faces assumption and this technology cannot be used in > such > >> application ? > >> Is it right place to ask about changes in MyFaces ? > >> Can you/we make such changes in core implementation, or maybe MyFaces is > >> simply implementation of JSF specification ? If it is, should we turn to > >> people that are responsible for JSF specification ? > >> > >> -- > >> Pozdrawiam, > >> Kamil Soboń > >> > >> iso.poczta(at)gmail.comturn to > >> sobon(at)student.agh.edu.pl > >> > >> >
