Mailing-List: contact dev-help@myfaces.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "MyFaces Development" <dev@myfaces.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of mkienenb@gmail.com designates
 74.125.82.181 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4E2EFACF.2030703@gmail.com>
References: <4E2EFACF.2030703@gmail.com>
From: Mike Kienenberger <mkienenb@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 13:43:12 -0400
Message-ID: 
 <CAM1yOjZNyY+h2vXVsFbVgLFa7ZPCM+3HgVTB+71fLM6MvGu-RQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: MyFaces in OSGi environment
To: MyFaces Development <dev@myfaces.apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

This is the right place for your questions and proposals.

We cannot tell you anything further until we see the proposals and details.


On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 1:35 PM, Kamil Sobo=C5=84 <iso.poczta@gmail.com> wr=
ote:
> Hi all,
>
> Me and my friend are trying to create modular web application that will w=
ork
> in OSGi environment.
> We have chosen JSF (MyFaces implementation) for our web tier (In fact we
> have chosen this technology in first version of our application, where we
> have implemented own mechanism for plug-in management, now we want to use
> OSGi).
>
> We have few very important assumption for web tier: views (pages), resour=
ces
> and manageable beans can be provided, changed and taken away in run-time.
> This is a result of other assumption: our application should be modulariz=
ed
> in plug-ins that can be installed, updated or uninstalled in run-time.
> There are few problems with MyFaces that we were trying to omit. Some we
> have managed to, some partially and some not. I am not going to tell abou=
t
> the details, but I can tell about them or provide web site urls where we
> have written down our cogitations.
>
> After some time we have reached a conclusion that it is pointless to make
> MyFaces working as we want to, without changing things in core
> implementation. Generally we know what should be reimplemented or redesig=
ned
> in core implementation of MyFaces. We believe that some of changes should=
 be
> done in API to make MyFaces more flexible. Once more I am not going to te=
ll
> about the details here (but fell free to ask).
>
> My questions are
> Is it our proposal worth of consideration ? Maybe out assumptions break d=
own
> some JavaServer Faces assumption and this technology cannot be used in su=
ch
> application ?
> Is it right place to ask about changes in MyFaces ?
> Can you/we make such changes in core implementation, or maybe MyFaces is
> simply implementation of JSF specification ? If it is, should we turn to
> people that are responsible for JSF specification ?
>
> --
> Pozdrawiam,
> Kamil Sobo=C5=84
>
> iso.poczta(at)gmail.comturn to
> sobon(at)student.agh.edu.pl
>
>