On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Gerhard Petracek<gerhard.petra...@gmail.com> wrote: > @things change: > for sure - i just couldn't see a reason in this case. so i pointed to the > discussion we had some months ago. > (basically i'm fine with "rethinking") anyway i agree with the arguments > mentioned by werner.
+1 I just want it to be come core over time; as getting groovy as simple as possible could be a decission against (or for) myfaces. the more complex, the worse. Well, anyway - starting in extension is fine........................ > > regards, > gerhard > > http://www.irian.at > > Your JSF powerhouse - > JSF Consulting, Development and > Courses in English and German > > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces > > > > 2009/8/12 Werner Punz <werner.p...@gmail.com> >> >> Matthias Wessendorf schrieb: >> > 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 >> > >> Well I assume since java itself has a scripting hook (which does not go >> very far except a neutral api to trigger the interpreter), we probably >> will get a neutral hook for scripting languages in jsf as well. >> >> But as I said I think we should work within the scope of the extension >> project for now until we have all the container quirks worked out, then >> we can rethink the core integration. >> >> Werner >> > > -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
