Hi,
+1 for (a)
and for component class generation:
Annotated class is a private class that is used as template (never
instantiated, just the code is copied inside the generated class)
(to not lose typeof checking in deeper trees - using abstract class in
the middle would lose it for generated classes)
The question then is with 2nd level classes (names based on used ones in
example):
/**
* @JSFComponent
* class = "org.apache.myfaces.component.ComponentInLowerLevel"
* superClass = "org.apache.myfaces.component.Component" //The superClass is a
different class
**/
class _AbstractComponentInLowerLevel extends _AbstractComponent
or
/**
* @JSFComponent
* class = "org.apache.myfaces.component.ComponentInLowerLevel"
* superClass = "org.apache.myfaces.component.Component" //The superClass is
the same class
**/
class _AbstractComponentInLowerLevel extends Component
???
(should be 1st option)
And as a side-note: only few classes in examples are in new generator style
Regards,
Zdenek
[EMAIL PROTECTED] napsal(a):
Werner Punz schrieb:
+1 definitely for jsf 1.1 we need something
working and well documented.
Just to be clear: the options for the next core-1.1and tomahawk releases
are:
(a) the new myfaces-builder-plugin
(b) the myfaces-faces-plugin (formerly called trinidad-faces-plugin) as
currently used in trinidad/core-1.2.x
(c) stay with the current solution.
Info about approach (a) can be found here:
http://wiki.apache.org/myfaces/MyfacesBuilderPlugin
Background on the whole issue (including a description of "the current
solution") can be found here:
http://wiki.apache.org/myfaces/Code_Generation
This vote is specifically about whether to choose (a) or not.
Choosing (a) means updating source in core-1.1 and tomahawk-1.1 trunk to
add javadoc annotations to the source code. Hence the vote, to make sure
everyone is happy for that to be done.
Werner, did you mean +1 for (a) or something else?
Regards,
Simon
