myfaces-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petra...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [core] Introducing implee6 - MYFACES-2579
Date Mon, 08 Mar 2010 08:05:46 GMT
+1

regards,
gerhard

http://www.irian.at

Your JSF powerhouse -
JSF Consulting, Development and
Courses in English and German

Professional Support for Apache MyFaces


2010/3/8 Werner Punz <werner.punz@gmail.com>

> +1 for that idea, the less configuration the better.
>
> Werner
>
>
> Am 07.03.10 15:44, schrieb Jakob Korherr:
>
>> I think we don't even need such a parameter, because the idea is that
>> the listener just does nothing if there are already entries for the
>> FacesServlet in web.xml!
>>
>> Regards,
>> Jakob
>>
>> 2010/3/7 Jan-Kees van Andel <jankeesvanandel@gmail.com
>> <mailto:jankeesvanandel@gmail.com>>
>>
>>
>>    Agreed, I was only thinking of one parameter: A parameter to turn
>>    the entire StartupListener off.
>>
>>    I look at it as a binary thing. Either the developer chooses to go
>>    with the flow with no custimization, OR he chooses to customize
>>    everything.
>>
>>    I.e. org.apache.myfaces.DISABLE_FACES_SERVLET_AUTODEPLOY = true
>>    (default false)
>>
>>    I think this will cover all use cases, where some may require a bit
>>    more configuration, but still work...
>>
>>    /JK
>>
>>
>>    2010/3/7 Jakob Korherr <jakob.korherr@gmail.com
>>    <mailto:jakob.korherr@gmail.com>>
>>
>>
>>        Yep!
>>
>>        We can discuss this stuff when the submodule is in place. Such
>>        things are very easy to change/configure in the StartupListener.
>>
>>        However, I think we should come up with a very standard default
>>        configuration. If the user wants something different, he will
>>        have to configure the mapping himself in the web.xml just as it
>>        is now. I am not a fan of too many configuration parameters
>>        which interfere with other configuration methods.
>>
>>        Regards,
>>        Jakob
>>
>>        2010/3/7 Jan-Kees van Andel <jankeesvanandel@gmail.com
>>        <mailto:jankeesvanandel@gmail.com>>
>>
>>
>>            In other words: Convention over configuration ;-)
>>
>>            I just think it's important to pick sensible defaults and to
>>            be able to turn it off, for example using a context-param.
>>
>>            For example, I think the mapping *.xhtml should also be
>>            default, but a developer must be able to turn *.xhtml off,
>>            since it's a widely used extension also outside of JSF...
>>
>>            Regards,
>>            Jan-Kees
>>
>>
>>            2010/3/7 Jakob Korherr <jakob.korherr@gmail.com
>>            <mailto:jakob.korherr@gmail.com>>
>>
>>
>>                Hi Bernd,
>>
>>                For some users it may be so ;) :D
>>
>>                Look Bernd, it's not that big thing. It's just a class
>>                and a text file. So it is by no means a problem to ship
>>                this with MyFaces Core 2. Also Mojarra does something
>>                similar too!
>>
>>                To your question: Nope! I just add the FacesServlet and
>>                the standard mappings /faces/*, *.jsf and maybe also
>>                *.faces, if there are no entries for the FacesServlet in
>>                the web.xml. If a user wants something special, he do
>>                will have to configure it in his web.xml. In this
>>                scenario my StartupListener will just do nothing.
>>
>>
>>                Regards,
>>                Jakob
>>
>>                2010/3/6 Bernd Bohmann <bernd.bohmann@googlemail.com
>>                <mailto:bernd.bohmann@googlemail.com>>
>>
>>
>>                    Hello Jakob,
>>
>>                    do you really think adding an other dependency is a
>>                    real problem?
>>                    How do you configure prefix or suffix mapping? For
>>                    each possible
>>                    configuration option an own impl version?
>>
>>                    Regards
>>
>>                    Bernd
>>
>>
>>                    On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 4:48 PM, Jakob Korherr
>>                    <jakob.korherr@gmail.com
>>                    <mailto:jakob.korherr@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>                     > Hi Bernd,
>>                     >
>>                     > If this module wouldn't be a part of myfaces
>>                    core, the users still would
>>                     > have to configure something to run their
>>                    MyFaces-2 apps in a EE6 container
>>                     > (e.g. they'd have to include myfaces commons),
>>                    which is not the target. The
>>                     > target is to get rid of any unnecessary
>>                    configuration to make the
>>                     > development process easier!
>>                     >
>>                     > Regards,
>>                     > Jakob
>>                     >
>>                     > 2010/3/6 Bernd Bohmann
>>                    <bernd.bohmann@googlemail.com
>>                    <mailto:bernd.bohmann@googlemail.com>>
>>
>>                     >>
>>                     >> Hello Jakob,
>>                     >>
>>                     >> I'm not really sure that this feature should be
>>                    part of myfaces-core.
>>                     >> Maybe myfaces-commons would be a better place.
>>                    But we can change this
>>                     >> later.
>>                     >>
>>                     >> +1 on commiting the module.
>>                     >>
>>                     >> Regards
>>                     >>
>>                     >> Bernd
>>                     >>
>>                     >> On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 4:32 PM, Jakob Korherr
>>                    <jakob.korherr@gmail.com
>>                    <mailto:jakob.korherr@gmail.com>>
>>
>>                     >> wrote:
>>                     >> > Hi Jan-Kees,
>>                     >> >
>>                     >> > Great :)
>>                     >> >
>>                     >> > I am currently testing on Tomcat, Jetty,
>>                    GlassFish v3 and JBoss 6!
>>                     >> >
>>                     >> > Regards,
>>                     >> > Jakob
>>                     >> >
>>                     >> > 2010/3/6 Jan-Kees van Andel
>>                    <jankeesvanandel@gmail.com
>>                    <mailto:jankeesvanandel@gmail.com>>
>>
>>                     >> >>
>>                     >> >> Hey,
>>                     >> >>
>>                     >> >> If it works on Jetty and Tomcat, I'd say +1
>>                    on committing the module.
>>                     >> >>
>>                     >> >> I can't think of big issues with committing
>>                    it as a separate module.
>>                     >> >> And
>>                     >> >> we can always revert if we have to.
>>                     >> >>
>>                     >> >> Cool, can't wait to check it out! On what
>>                    appserver are you testing
>>                     >> >> this
>>                     >> >> stuff Jakob?
>>                     >> >>
>>                     >> >> Regards,
>>                     >> >> Jan-Kees
>>                     >> >>
>>                     >> >>
>>                     >> >> 2010/3/6 Jakob Korherr
>>                    <jakob.korherr@gmail.com
>>                    <mailto:jakob.korherr@gmail.com>>
>>
>>                     >> >>>
>>                     >> >>> Hi guys,
>>                     >> >>>
>>                     >> >>> I managed to introduce the core submodule
>>                    "implee6" on my local
>>                     >> >>> machine.
>>                     >> >>> This new submodule includes Java EE 6
>>                    dependencies and thus you can
>>                     >> >>> use
>>                     >> >>> Servlet API 3.0 and other new things in
it.
>>                     >> >>>
>>                     >> >>> When building MyFaces, this new submodule
is
>>                    built before the normal
>>                     >> >>> impl
>>                     >> >>> submodule. Then the .class and the .java
>>                    files are "injected" into the
>>                     >> >>> impl-build. This is very similar to how
>>                    shared_impl is included in the
>>                     >> >>> myfaces-impl build at the moment, but
>>                    without recompilation.
>>                     >> >>>
>>                     >> >>> In this way we are able to use the new
>>                    services approach of Java EE 6
>>                     >> >>> to
>>                     >> >>> get rid of the Faces Servlet entries in
>>                    web.xml, because in any Java
>>                     >> >>> EE 6
>>                     >> >>> container we can configure this dynamically
>>                    at startup (see
>>                     >> >>> MYFACES-2579 for
>>                     >> >>> details). This also works fantastically
on
>>                    my local machine - it's
>>                     >> >>> really
>>                     >> >>> cool!
>>                     >> >>>
>>                     >> >>> Also with this method we are still Java
EE 5
>>                    complaint, because the EE
>>                     >> >>> 6
>>                     >> >>> classes just won't get loaded in a non
EE 6
>>                    environment, because there
>>                     >> >>> are
>>                     >> >>> no dependencies from impl or shared to
them.
>>                    They are only called (and
>>                     >> >>> loaded) by a Java EE 6 container via the
>>                    services definition.
>>                     >> >>>
>>                     >> >>> Furthermore I noticed that the Mojarra
guys
>>                    also include a similar
>>                     >> >>> solution to this in their newest build!
>>                     >> >>>
>>                     >> >>> Now, before I commit something of this,
I
>>                    wanted to ask if there are
>>                     >> >>> any
>>                     >> >>> objections with this proposal. If so, please
>>                    tell me your concerns!
>>                     >> >>>
>>                     >> >>> Regards,
>>                     >> >>> Jakob
>>                     >> >>
>>                     >> >
>>                     >> >
>>                     >
>>                     >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Mime
View raw message