Hmmm, I'll try to include Ed on this discussion - wonder what he thinks on this.
@Ed: We have discussed how your proposed solution to the ordering problem of the faces-config.xml files would also solve the problem that a user might need to reorder them to fix problems occuring by a wrong load order? If I understand your solution right, the jar-files would always be ordered by their name - which might not always be the perfect solution we would want to have. Have I misunderstood you somehow? regards, Martin P.S.: Find below what Mike and me have been discussing - about customizing the comparator you are proposing... On 9/28/05, Mike Kienenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Chainable probably wasn't the right word. I was originally thinking > of wrapping like ViewHandler or NavigationManager, but by the time I > was done writing the message, I didn't see how it could work that way. > Probably just adding in all of the comparators and doing some kind of > dependency ordering may make more sense. There's still some > hand-waving involved here. The concept is good, but the > inplementation is still pretty vague. > > I also think this is going to need to be based on something other than > the jar names. > Otherwise, renaming your jar to tomahawk-2005-09-28 is going to break things. > Maybe the "Implementation-Title:" field in the MANIFEST? Is that possible? > > On 9/28/05, Martin Marinschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Nice! > > > > But how would we make sure that Alex' comparator wraps the sandbox > > comparator wraps the tomahawk comparator? > > > > regards, > > > > Martin > > > > On 9/28/05, Mike Kienenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > 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
