myfaces-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jakob Korherr <jakob.korh...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [core] Introducing implee6 - MYFACES-2579
Date Mon, 08 Mar 2010 18:44:30 GMT
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