On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 9:19 AM, Werner Punz<werner.p...@gmail.com> wrote: > Gerhard Petracek schrieb: >> >> in the original discussion we decided that. >> you agreed as well. ;)
that does not mean I can rethink it. things change... >> > Besides that, it was one of the reasons why we opened an extension > subproject, scripting support definitely should be an extension until > we have a spec in this area. there will never be something written in the jsf spec on this; groovy guys are lazy; they will never finish their JSR, IMO I am personally fine with extensions that are specific (and have a small footprint) to be added to the core. We did that in the past and we will continue to do so. > > The main issue with my implementation is the classloader and that is a > problem with many containers, first we have to support osgi which has > certain classloader criteria, then we have to support the big iron servers > which some of them have the nasty habit of having a different classloader at > the time the servlet context is initialized than at the time the servlet > itself is triggered and then we have to support everyone else. > > Speaking of opening a can of worms there this is it. With an extension we > can support a limited subset of things and over time improve them gradually. > Once it is good enough or no spec will be ever done in the forseeable future > we can move things over. I am fine with either way; core or extensions. If the stuff is *stable*, there is no harm in having it beeing part of core. -Matthias > > > > Werner > > -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
