That's a pretty interesting idea. Can we make it chainable? Ie, tomahawk adds a comparator that requires that myfaces-impl is loaded first. sandbox adds a comparator that requires that tomahawk is loaded. Alexander adds a comparator that requires that tomahawk is loaded before JarX.
It'd be best if it were done in such a way that every jar can specify its own ordering dependencies. On 9/28/05, Martin Marinschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It might be good to be able to "hook in" a customized comparator for > this proposed map- we could then easily change the order of the loaded > chars by providing a different comparator implementation. > > wdyt? > > regards, > > Martin > > On 9/28/05, Mike Kienenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Since the ordering is currently unspecified, and since 1.2 is a ways > > off for MyFaces, it seems to me that there's nothing stopping the > > MyFaces project from imposing our own ordering system on the loading > > process under JSF 1.1. And if it's demonstrated to be a good way of > > doing things, perhaps it'll influence the direction of JSF > > 1.2/2.0/etc. > > > > I don't think we want to be renaming our jar files to > > "aaaaa-myfaces-tomahawk.jar" > > > > On 9/28/05, Martin Marinschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Cool! > > > > > > Yes, we do have a great expert group there ;) > > > > > > I don't fully understand the proposed solution, though. > > > > > > It will make sure that the jars are loaded in a certain order, and > > > that order will be the name of the jar-files. > > > > > > How are we able to change this with the proposed scheme? > > > > > > Or am I completely overlooking something obvious? > > > > > > regards, > > > > > > Martin > > > > > > On 9/28/05, Jesse Alexander (KBSA 21) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > too late for 1.2, I suppose! > > > > > > > > exactly the right time for 2.0... > > > > > > > > I think there is something like an issue tracker on dev.java.net. > > > > -----/Original Message----- > > > > > > > > Not really. Ed Burns has answered this: > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > Yes, this problem is real, but we may be able to solve it in 1.2. As > > > > you may know, the webtier specs tend to ignore the config file ordering > > > > problem. In this case, we don't know the order in which the jar files > > > > containing the faces-config files will be encountered. > > > > > > > > I think I have a simple solution. > > > > > > > > I've filed it as > > > > <https://javaserverfaces-spec-public.dev.java.net/issues/show_bug.cgi?id > > > > =121> > > > > and will bring it to the EG. > > > > -----/Original Message----- > > > > > > > > I'd say: lightning fast response and in the best possible direction. > > > > > > > > kudos to the EG!!! > > > > > > > > regards > > > > Alexander > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > http://www.irian.at > > > Your JSF powerhouse - > > > JSF Trainings in English and German > > > > > > > > -- > > http://www.irian.at > Your JSF powerhouse - > JSF Trainings in English and German >
