Doenst also matter for me 2.3-next is no spec compliant anyway ;) Am Di., 17. Jan. 2023 um 14:49 Uhr schrieb Melloware <[email protected] >:
> I am OK with either you can leave 2.3-next and just change 4.0 if you want. > > > On 1/17/2023 8:46 AM, Paul Nicolucci wrote: > > Thomas, > > Thoughts on changing 2.3-next and 4.0 vs just changing the default for 4.0? > > Thanks, > > Paul Nicolucci > > On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 4:42 AM Thomas Andraschko < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> for me its ok, so 0.25 ;) >> >> please also change the default value on the homepage >> >> Am Sa., 14. Jan. 2023 um 18:21 Uhr schrieb Paul Nicolucci < >> [email protected]>: >> >>> I'd like to propose that we disable this per default. Thomas, would you >>> want a vote for this? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Paul Nicolucci >>> >>> On Thu, Jan 5, 2023 at 3:07 AM Thomas Andraschko < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Good question. >>>> In theory it was just a nice experimental feature but it works quite >>>> fine in real world and with performance benefits. >>>> >>>> But its configurable via context param, we just need to decide whether >>>> its enabled or disabled per default. >>>> >>>> Am Do., 5. Jan. 2023 um 04:19 Uhr schrieb Paul Nicolucci < >>>> [email protected]>: >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> While looking over some code in MyFaces I noticed in Faces 4.0 we have >>>>> the following ELResolver: >>>>> https://github.com/apache/myfaces/blob/main/impl/src/main/java/org/apache/myfaces/el/resolver/LambdaBeanELResolver.java >>>>> >>>>> This resolver is added to the resolver list here: >>>>> https://github.com/apache/myfaces/blob/main/impl/src/main/java/org/apache/myfaces/el/DefaultELResolverBuilder.java#L154 >>>>> >>>>> Reading over the specification: >>>>> https://jakarta.ee/specifications/faces/4.0/jakarta-faces-4.0.html#a2966 >>>>> I wanted to >>>>> start a discussion on the following point in the specification: >>>>> *"These actual ELResolver instances must be added. It is not compliant to >>>>> simply add other resolvers that preserve these semantics."* >>>>> >>>>> Do we think we're still spec compliant by not directly adding >>>>> *jakarta.el.BeanELResolver* and instead adding*LambdaBeanELResolver* >>>>> which extends *jakarta.el.BeanELResolver*? >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> >>>>> Paul Nicolucci >>>>> >>>>>
