Not sure which method I think is better but I would definitely like there to be a standard, updated way to do this for tomahawk. I vote in that vain if it counts for anything :)
Also, won't there be more involved than just the taglib.xml file, such as a Tag Handler to get the tree2 component to work? On 8/3/07, Andrew Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It would be nice to have it automated, but really, is it necessary for > the short term? The taglib requires hardly any data, so is extremely > easy to maintain. To keep the maven site updated already requires > modifying its documents, so this is no harder. Sandbox already > requires even more work to maintain the TLD files than the work > required to support facelets. > > Voting +1 on adding taglib.xml files to the META-INF directory of > tomahawk and sandbox without creating new JAR files. > > -Andrew > > On 8/3/07, Mike Kienenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Actually, as far as I know, all of the MyFaces committers are +1 for > > making a tomahawk.taglib.xml file for MyFaces part of the > > distribution. The problem is that we don't have an automated process > > in place to keep the file up to date yet. Hence Bruno's comment that > > we'll address it in Tomahawk for JSF 1.2 since no committer has had > > the time and energy to tackle it in our current build system. > > > > As for "what harm", if we put something into the main tomahawk jar > > file, it becomes exceedingly difficult for end-users to override those > > definitions. Since there's no process in place to automatically > > generate the right definitions, there's a lot of room for error here. > > If we can't keep a community wiki page up to date with the correct > > definitions, it stands to reason that a committer-only file > > (committers being only a small subset of the community maintaining the > > wiki page) is going to be worse, not better, at having the correct > > entries in the taglib file. > > > > I think Bruno's tomahawk-facelets.jar file is probably the best > > short-term solution until we get the automated build in place. > > > > On 8/3/07, Nebinger, David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > I thought: why not putting this file <facelets defn file for > > > tomahawk> > > > > right away in the meta-inf of the Tomahawk jar? > > > > Won't harm nobody but will certainly help a lot of people. > > > > Although I still subscribe to that idea, he had a point also: > > > > MF and facelets are indeed 2 different technologies, better keep the 2 > > > apart. > > > > > > Oh, come on, I've heard lame excuses before but this would seem to take > > > the cake. > > > > > > It's not like facelets support requires additional code/classes/whatever > > > to use tomahawk and facelets, it is merely the extra xml file. > > > > > > Now the end users are forced to try to track down a working file that > > > has a version that works with the version of tomahawk they're using. > > > > > > Give 'em a break and just add the file and be done with it... > > > > > >
