myfaces-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Manfred Geiler <manfred.gei...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: javax.faces.component.html package
Date Mon, 30 May 2005 09:18:23 GMT
Which sources? The latest 1.0.9 release?
Just downloaded and checked: Everything on it's place.
Or did you mean the RI sources?

-Manfred


2005/5/27, Jesse Alexander (KBSA 21) <alexander.jesse@credit-suisse.com>:
> Hi
> 
> I "panicked" because in the downloadable JSF-sources that package contains
> only a package.html but no sources. I double-checked just now: the class-files
> are in the jar-file.
> 
> Sorry
> Alexander
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Craig McClanahan [mailto:craigmcc@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 10:01 AM
> To: MyFaces Development
> Subject: Re: javax.faces.component.html package
> 
> On 5/27/05, Jesse Alexander (KBSA 21) <alexander.jesse@credit-suisse.com> wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > I have a question about this package. I thought "javax.faces.*" package
> > define the JSF API. And therefor those packages and classes should be
> > available in all implementations.
> >
> 
> Yep, they should.
> 
> > - MyFaces delivers this package which contains quite a few usefull classes
> >   in its myfaces-jsf-api.jar giving the impression that these are really
> >   API-classes.
> > - In the JSF Reference Implementation this package is missing.
> >
> 
> Huh?  The javax.faces.component.html classes are certainly part of
> jsf-api.jar in the reference implementation.  They are not found in
> jsf-impl.jar precisely *because* they are required to be available in
> any compatible implementation of JavaServer Faces.
> 
> > Now is this a problem with the RI (which should also deliver it)
> > or with MyFaces (which should not deliver it)?
> >
> 
> The classes in question live in jsf-api.jar of the RI.
> 
> >
> > I need to create components which can run under both implementations
> > (our company has not yet decided which implementation to use) and
> > every now and then one of the classes from this package slips in.
> >
> 
> Your compilation scripts should reference only the API jar file of
> whichever implementation you want to use, so you can say things like
> "public class MyCommandLink extends HtmlCommandLink" and have it work
> with any implementation.  If MyFaces doesn't include these classes in
> its API jar, then that's a bug.
> 
> > regards
> > Alexander
> >
> >
> 
> Craig
>

Mime
View raw message