Carsten Kaiser schrieb: > I know this one, but unfortunately it has not the right granularity for > some problems... I had some matrix in mind, wherein the used common > extension points and the required configuration scenarios are listed! E.g. > component x requires StreamingAddRessource to be configured, component y > just works with DefaultAddRessource... etc. > Ah ok, that clears things up, anyway, if you ran into one of those issues this is clearly a bug, the StreamingAddResource is clearly a MyFaces artefact which should give speed optimizations, if some of the components do not work with either addresource filter (DefaultAddRessource is also MyFaces for serving resources)
please comment the bug! This are by no means standard jsf extension points inf fact jsf does not specify how resources have to be loaded from the system, those are things which are very myfaces specific to stream resources out of the project jars into the browser. > So, from outside JSF can be considered as some kind of lego brick system, > where you can plug together components as needed, since all have the same > interface structure. But unfortunately this is just half of the truth > since there are dependencies under the surface established through > assumptions about common functionality like e.g. the order variables are > resolved etc. > Yes unfortunatly this is true... Maybe compatibility matrix would help along the lines of which component frameworks work together and which not, this clearly would make things easier, if some stuff does not work within a single project (myfaces + streamingaddresource + tomahawk component then this is clearly a bug not an incomptability) I am not sure if an extremely fine granularity would help particularily, because it would become another bugtracker...
