On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Werner Punz <werner.p...@gmail.com> wrote: > I am somewhat against using hacks or spec weaknesses in this level > because the next revision might close this loophole.
ok, I am fine to give up on that. > My preferred option also would be mfx:ajax instead Good. > but tomahawk also is with me! -1 b/c that adds an odd dependency to tomahawk... mfx:xyz does make sense to be the home for myfaces core "improvements". -M > > Werner > > > Matthias Wessendorf schrieb: >> >> On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Werner Punz <werner.p...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> I vetoed following options: >>> >>> 2.) optimization options as attributes of f:ajax >>> 3.) optimization options within f:attributes nested in f:ajax >>> >>> The reason for this is, f: is a spec namespace which we cannot >>> alter! >> >> we don't alter it. We just abuse a weakness in the spec (in facelets) >> >>> So f:ajax and options within f:ajax is out of the question! >>> This simply would break spec behavior and probably would be >>> prohibited by the TCK anyway! >> >> I doubt that the TCK is able to check that >> >>> In the past we relied on the t: namespace for such behavior >>> and I personally thing we should follow the way for future extensions as >>> well! >> >> my only problem is that everybody has to use tomahawk for that. >> And I am totally -1 on that. >> >> Introducing some IMPL specific lib (-> mfx:ajax) does make much more >> sense, >> instead of putting things like that to tomahawk. >> >> If we can't agree on the f:ajax "hack", let's think about mfx:ajax... >> >> -M >> >>> >>> Werner >>> ( >>> No I am not from the United Nations (although I would not mind to have a >>> UN >>> salary ;-) >>> ) >>> >>> >>> >>> Ganesh schrieb: >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Vote was closed by 2009-04-27 09:55 a.m. Final results of the vote: >>>> [1] +3, 1 veto >>>> [2] +1, 3 vetoes >>>> [3] +0, 3 vetoes >>>> [4] +1, 0 vetoes >>>> >>>> Thus, no consensus has been reached by this vote. This is, what the >>>> decision making process on >>>> http://apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#decision-making >>>> prescribes: >>>> >>>> >>The rules require that a negative vote includes an alternative >>>> proposal >>>> or a detailed explanation of the reasons for the negative vote. The >>>> community then tries to gather consensus on an alternative proposal that >>>> resolves the issue. In the great majority of cases, the concerns leading >>>> to >>>> the negative vote can be addressed. >>>> This process is called "consensus gathering" and we consider it a very >>>> important indication of a healthy community.<< >>>> >>>> So, as everybody has given alternative proposals, all vetoers are asked >>>> to >>>> give detailed explanations for their negative votes to enable consensus >>>> gathering. My personal observation is that everybody was pretty fast >>>> with >>>> emitting vetoes making me feel I'm at the UNO security council :-) Imho >>>> and >>>> though I can't emit a binding vote solutions [1] to [3] all aren't that >>>> bad. >>>> Maybe everybody who emitted a veto could consider weakening it to a +0 >>>> thus >>>> opening the path for a majority decision? >>>> >>>> Best Regards, >>>> Ganesh >>>> >>>> Ganesh schrieb: >>>> > Hi, >>>> > >>>> > We are trying to agree on a way to include the optimization options >>>> pps:true/false, queuesize:n, errorlevel:WARNING/ERROR/NONE for JSF 2.0 >>>> Javascript with the MyFaces JSF 2.0 implementation. >>>> > We've got 4 different proposed solutions, each has been checked for >>>> technical feasability: >>>> > >>>> > 1.) extra options packed in a new t:ajax tag and myfaces.ajax.request >>>> > 2.) optimization options as attributes of f:ajax >>>> > 3.) optimization options within f:attributes nested in f:ajax >>>> > 4.) a separate taglibrary with a single tag mf:ajax included with the >>>> core >>>> > Please consider the solutions and vote! See previous mails on this >>>> list >>>> with "f:ajax and MyFaces extensions" in the subject for further details. >>>> > >>>> > Please note: >>>> > This vote is "majority approval" with a minimum of three +1 votes. >>>> This >>>> is a code modification vote [1], so you can veto a solution with a vote >>>> of >>>> -1. Please vote whole numbers. You can give a vote on each of the 4 >>>> solutions. E.g. you can vote: >>>> > >>>> > 1.) +1 >>>> > 2.) +1 >>>> > 3.) +0 >>>> > 4.) -1 >>>> > >>>> > The vote lasts for 72 hours. It start on 2009-04-24 9:55 a.m. and >>>> ends >>>> on 2009-04-27 09:55 a.m. >>>> > >>>> > ------------------------------------------------ >>>> > [ ] +1 - you favourize this solution >>>> > [ ] +0 - you don't like this solution >>>> > [ ] -1 - you veto this solution >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Best Regards, >>>> > Ganesh Jung >>>> > >>>> > [1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> > > -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
