On Jun 1, 2007, at 7:37 AM, Don Hill wrote:

David,

I have some cycles to spend on the annotation impl now, can you give me a little guidance in how you think we should implement this for JSF-RI, I saw something on jetty annotations, does this pertain to this topic.

Of course in my opinion the best solution is to convince the ri to adopt the same kind of interface we are using for MyFaces, tomcat, and, almost, jetty. However I doubt this is likely :-)

I would look in geronimo-myfaces to see how we set up MyFaces. The only hard part is that you have to come up with some code to install the injections into an existing instance. I would look at borrowing code from xbean-reflect to support this. I don't have an opinion yet on whether this support should be in xbean-reflect itself or in the jsf-ri integration. Maybe Dain and/or David Blevins have an opinion?

thanks
david jencks


Don

On 5/31/07, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On May 31, 2007, at 3:37 PM, Don Hill wrote:

Hi,

I have actually written the JSF-RI modules for geronimo, I am still testing them. I have successfully tested some sample apps and they seem to work fine, a starting point anyways.

Did you implement their AnnotationProcessor interface?

thanks
david jencks


Don

On 4/24/07, Donald Woods < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You can also download and try one of the daily builds that Prasad posts
to the [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list -

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [BUILD] TRUNK: Successful for Revision: 532103
Date: 24 Apr 2007 22:32:43 -0000
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

OpenEJB trunk at 532101
Geronimo Revision: 532103 built with tests skipped

See the full build-1800.log file at
http://people.apache.org/~prasad/binaries/20070424/build-1800.log
Download the binaries from
http://people.apache.org/~prasad/binaries/20070424



Arinté wrote:
> I have tried installing the jsf files through geronimo and including in the
> war file and they both give the same error.
>
> "Paul McMahan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ...
> Hello, How are you trying to use the sun jsf impl? For example are > you including it in your WEB-INF/lib? If so then I don't expect that
> would work since Geronimo filters the jsf classes from a webapps
> classloader.  This is a result of the JSF 1.2 specification 10.2.5
> and 10.2.6 which says that webapps should not include the jsf classes
> in their archive.  As we move forward I think it would be a great
> idea to make the jsf implementation pluggable, but this will probably > be done by using Geronimo's plugin system instead of bundling the JSF > jars in a webapp's archive due to this language in the specification
> and because of jsf implementation-specific functionality like
> resource injection for managed beans.
>
> The jsf support in Geronimo 2.0-M4 is more complete so I think you'll
> have better luck with it.  However, that version has not been
> officially released yet so you will need to build it from svn tag or
> look in the [EMAIL PROTECTED] archive for the announcement of M4 release
> candidate binaries.
>
> Best wishes,
> Paul
>
>
> On Apr 23, 2007, at 7:52 AM, Arinté wrote:
>
>> I am trying to run sun jsf impl 1.2 on Geronimo, but I keep running into
>> errors, is it even possible?  My current error is this:
>> javax.servlet.ServletException:
>> org/apache/commons/lang/builder/HashCodeBuilder
>> at javax.faces.webapp.FacesServlet.service (FacesServlet.java:152)
>>         at
>> org.apache.catalina.core.ApplicationFilterChain.internalDoFilter
>> (ApplicationFilterChain.java:290)
>>         at
>> org.apache.catalina.core.ApplicationFilterChain.doFilter
>> (ApplicationFilterChain.java :206)
>>
>> Even though I have commons lang in my geronimo.xml. Also, when I export
>> this project to just plain tomcat 6 it works without me adding the
>> commons
>> lang jar file anywhere, meaning I don't think sun uses it, but somehow
>> myfaces is getting injected in here.
>>
>> Any tips or guides on getting this working? I am using Geronimo 2 M3.
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>





Reply via email to