myfaces-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matthias Wessendorf <mat...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] MyFaces 2.0 optimization options
Date Mon, 27 Apr 2009 15:42:26 GMT
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 5:36 PM, Mike Kienenberger <mkienenb@gmail.com> wrote:
> Unfortunately, I don't have any knowledge about the ajax work you are
> all doing. However, I am -1 on anything that tries to intentionally
> break spec compatibility, such as reusing the f: namespace.   Even if
> it's not explicitly spelled out, we know that it's against the spirit
> of the spec.  I find it impossible to believe that there are not
> better approaches.   And the reality is that the actual tags used in
> the namespace are under the control of the user anyway.   If someone
> wanted to map mfx: as f:, it's trivial to do so in both jsp and in

JSP is dead. All the new JSF 2.0 features don't work with JSP
(unless one goes ahead and provides an extension for that,
e.g an t:ajax handler for JSP)

-Matthias

> facelets.   But why would we encourage that behavior?
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 9:25 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew@apache.org> wrote:
>> ok, let's start with t:ajax
>>
>> We can always add a new JAR, for mfx:ajax...
>> But to get this started, I am fine with the following:
>>
>> 1.) +1
>> 2.) +1
>> 3.) -0
>> 4.) +1 (I will do that some when later)
>>
>> I think this now we have some kinda agreement, right ?
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 3:20 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew@apache.org> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 3:17 PM, Ganesh <ganesh@j4fry.org> wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> The mf:ajax solution is the only one that completely breaks compatibility
>>>> with Mojarra. Applications using mf:ajax would simply fails on Mojarra. None
>>>
>>> not when that is an extra JAR, that is just shipped with the myfaces
>>> core release.
>>>
>>> -M
>>>
>>>> of solutions [1] to [3] would do so. Alex and me don't have a binding vote,
>>>> but it'll be us implementing this and we are both -1 on mf:ajax.
>>>>
>>>> mf:ajax is also worse than t:ajax because it doesn't bring myfaces
>>>> Javascript to Mojarra users. The Mojarra Javascript needs a lot of
>>>> improvement...
>>>>
>>>> Best Regards,
>>>> Ganesh
>>>>>
>>>>> -1 b/c that adds an odd dependency to tomahawk...
>>>>> mfx:xyz does make sense to be the home for myfaces core "improvements".
>>>>>
>>>>> -M
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Matthias Wessendorf
>>>
>>> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
>>> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
>>> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Matthias Wessendorf
>>
>> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
>> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
>> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>>
>



-- 
Matthias Wessendorf

blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf

Mime
View raw message