myfaces-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Leonardo Uribe <lu4...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [core] Introducing implee6 - MYFACES-2579
Date Thu, 11 Mar 2010 21:24:06 GMT
Hi

2010/3/11 Jakob Korherr <jakob.korherr@gmail.com>

> Hi,
>
> I totally agree with Jan-Kees. Just override the compiler plugin in implee6
> to use jdk 6!
>
> Also I really don't see why you think it is such a big problem to have a
> class in the jar file which has other dependencies and another version when
> no other class has any relations to it. It's like a website with no link
> referring to it: you will never find it unless you know the real address of
> it!
>
> Furthermore if we put it into myfaces commons we can also drop it, because
> then it makes no sence. The user will rather continue to use the web.xml
> configuration than bundling some jar, which he maybe does not know that it
> even exists..
>
>
So the change has no sense outside myfaces impl jar. That means we only have
two options: do it like this or remove the code.


> And last but not least: Mojarra also has a similar JDK6 compiled class with
> Java EE 6 dependencies in their jsf-impl.jar. So why would it be a problem
> for MyFaces?
>
>
The position from jsr-314-open mail list is as long as TCK test pass we
could do it, and if mojarra has something similar, we could do the same. If
something happens we could remove it and that's all (that means if something
happens we'll be forced to remove this feature from myfaces and that is
risky), since this is not part of the standard, but users should be aware of
that implication. Note from this change, myfaces requires JDK 1.6 to be
compiled, but the classes inside api and impl modules requires JDK 1.5.


> Please don't make this problem bigger as it is...
>
>

I believe it is important to discuss the possible implications of a change
before commit it and make it clear to people (that's one idea about
opensource, give the people the power to know what's happening behind
courtains and the tools to change it). Just put some code because you like
it, or it is cool not always is enough. That's common sense, right?. Also
you have to keep into account this is a standard of some spec, not just a
custom library, so a lot of care is required before add a new feature
outside the spec. So, the idea is not make a problem bigger or start a
bizantine war that leads to nowhere, just benefit the community throught
constructive discussion, but for a discussion it is necessary a clear and
rational position, possible courses of action before start and a "open"
mind, that means, give yourself the possibility of change of opinion
anytime. Please note the benefit of this exercise, if someone wants to check
why this stuff is done in this or that way, there is a source of knowledge
through the mailing list. Please think carefully about what "opensource"
word means.

regards,

Leonardo Uribe


> Regards,
> Jakob
>
>
>
> 2010/3/11 Leonardo Uribe <lu4242@gmail.com>
>
>> Hi
>>
>> I have sended an email to jsr-314-open mail list just to confirm if it is
>> valid or not to do this kind of stuff. The problem is the class involved on
>> implee6 has dependencies with classes that needs JDK 6 to be compiled, so in
>> a JDK 1.5 environment it will crash if the classes are loaded. It is true
>> ease of development will suffer, but I think prevent bugs like this takes
>> precedence.
>>
>> regards,
>>
>> Leonardo Uribe
>>
>> 2010/3/11 Jan-Kees van Andel <jankeesvanandel@gmail.com>
>>
>> Why not override the compiler plugin in the module to use JDK 6?
>>>
>>> I think the whole point about the module is ease of development and this
>>> will suffer when putting it in a separate jar.
>>>
>>> About the manual classpath scanning or other runtime stuff. This should
>>> not break because of JDK 6 stuff, since the bytecode should be backwards
>>> compatible.
>>>
>>> My 2 cents...
>>>
>>> /JK
>>>
>>>
>>> 2010/3/11 Leonardo Uribe <lu4242@gmail.com>
>>>
>>> Hi
>>>>
>>>> I'm working with jdk 1.5 and when I tried to compile current20 branch I
>>>> have an error. This means to create myfaces jars it should be compiled with
>>>> jdk 1.6, because implee6 has dependencies with jars with java 1.6 specific
>>>> code:
>>>>
>>>> [INFO]
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> [ERROR] BUILD FAILURE
>>>> [INFO]
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> [INFO] Compilation failure
>>>>
>>>> D:\workspace\myfaces\current20\core\implee6\src\main\java\org\apache\myfaces\ee6
>>>> \MyFacesContainerInitializer.java:[47,-1] cannot access
>>>> javax.servlet.ServletCon
>>>> tainerInitializer
>>>> bad class file: C:\Documents and
>>>> Settings\lu4242\.m2\repository\javax\javaee-web
>>>>
>>>> -api\6.0\javaee-web-api-6.0.jar(javax/servlet/ServletContainerInitializer.class)
>>>>
>>>> class file has wrong version 50.0, should be 49.0
>>>>
>>>> In theory, we can't do this, because if we do, myfaces-impl has one
>>>> class jdk 1.6 specific, and jsf 2.0 is jdk 1.5 compatible. Now, in the
>>>> practice this class is not loaded by any part of myfaces, but maybe some
>>>> program that tries to scan the classpath and load this class into the
>>>> classpath will see the problem.
>>>>
>>>> My personal opinion is implee6 should have its own separate jar with
>>>> some OSGi specific stuff, so if someone wants to use it it should put three
>>>> jars on the classpath: myfaces-api, myfaces-impl, myfaces-implee6. We have
a
>>>> lot of precedences for that kind of stuff (orchestra core and core15 for
>>>> example, tomahawk sandbox and sandbox15).
>>>>
>>>> I also think this code should be moved to myfaces commons, because keep
>>>> it as a module in core project means we have to use jdk 1.6 to compile all
>>>> artifacts and we have a plugin that checks for jdk 1.5 compatibility that
>>>> will fail (see checkJDK profile on myfaces impl pom).
>>>>
>>>> Suggestions are welcome.
>>>>
>>>> regards,
>>>>
>>>> Leonardo Uribe
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2010/3/8 Jakob Korherr <jakob.korherr@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> So I committed everything. Please feel free to test it - I am curious
>>>>> about your opinions :)
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Jakob
>>>>>
>>>>> 2010/3/8 Jakob Korherr <jakob.korherr@gmail.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since there don't seem to be any big concerns about this, I will
now
>>>>>> commit the new submodule "implee6".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Jakob
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2010/3/8 Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petracek@gmail.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +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