actually most of the other javaee APIs share the same problem like myfaces. E.g. you cannot exchange javax.el-api.jar with the tomcat or juel versions, because they really must fit to their impl jars! They are all API compatible, but _not_ runtime compatible!
The CDI and atinject apis are fine in this regard, not 100% sure about javax.validation-api. LieGrue, strub ----- Original Message ----- > From: Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Cc: > Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2012 8:14 AM > Subject: Re: Inclusion of MyFace API in javaee-api jar > > No no, go ahead! > > Jean-Louis > > 2012/1/4 David Blevins <[email protected]> > >> Didn't seem there were any objections to yanking MyFaces API from the >> javaee-api jar. Speak up if you have other thoughts. >> >> Will aim to release this tomorrow if possible. Happy to wait -- just say >> the word :) >> >> >> -David >> >> On Oct 28, 2011, at 1:47 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: >> >> > maybe we can wait Jon talk (tuesday) before doing it? >> > >> > - Romain >> > >> > >> > 2011/10/28 David Blevins <[email protected]> >> > >> >> We should probably yank the myfaces-api from the current > javaee-api jar >> >> snapshot. >> >> >> >> Seems this jar is really an implementation and if someone wanted > to use >> a >> >> different Faces implementation they would be unable to do so. >> >> >> >> >> >> -David >> >> >> >> On Oct 28, 2011, at 12:53 PM, Matt Benson wrote: >> >> >> >>> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 2:46 PM, David Blevins < >> [email protected]> >> >> wrote: >> >>>> Quick question on the org.apache.myfaces.core:myfaces-api > jar. >> >>>> >> >>>> Is it tied to MyFaces in some way? Guessing the answer > is, yes, as it >> >> is labeled "myfaces-api" and not something more generic > like "faces-api" >> >>>> >> >>>> If the answer is, no, then the follow up is how often does > its >> contents >> >> change? >> >>>> >> >>>> If it is stable and only changed once in a while, we might > include it >> in >> >> the javaee-api jar we produce from OpenEJB/TomEE. We don't > include >> JavaMail >> >> for example as it really isn't an API but an actual > implementation. >> Seems >> >> like that is the case here. >> >>> >> >>> Nail on the head and all that. :) >> >>> >> >>> Matt >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> -David >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
