On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 7:23 PM, Jakob Korherr <jakob.korh...@gmail.com> wrote: > It is a bug to allow "old" facelets taglibs which are not marked with > version="2.0" with the built-in facelets implementation.
do you mind filing one against them :-) I wonder what they have to say for that... -Matthias > > 2010/2/9 Matthias Wessendorf <mat...@apache.org> >> >> maybe I am conservative, but I doubt that it is a bug, to allow "old" >> facelets-based tag JARs. >> You are saying it is, right ? >> >> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 7:04 PM, Leonardo Uribe <lu4...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Hi >> > >> > I agree with Jakob. >> > >> > Just a small comment, doing some black box tests between myfaces and ri >> > I >> > notice long time ago that ri cannot read faces-config.xml without have >> > version 2.0 in that file. It seems they fix that but a side effect is >> > what >> > we are seeing right now (facelets taglibs 1.1.x read). I think myfaces >> > is >> > doing right and really ri is mixing the two config files by some unknown >> > reason. >> > >> > regards, >> > >> > Leonardo Uribe >> > >> > 2010/2/9 Jakob Korherr <jakob.korh...@gmail.com> >> >> >> >> On my opinion you have to differentiate between 1.x taglibs and 2.0 >> >> taglibs in some way, because MyFaces cannot know if this taglib will or >> >> won't run. If you can ensure that your 1.x-taglib runs with facelets >> >> 2.0 you >> >> simply have to add version="2.0" to your taglib and it will function >> >> properly. >> >> >> >> This is also specified in the spec (although completely hidden in the >> >> appendix): take a look at the xsd type definition of >> >> facelet-taglib-versionType. It says "This type contains the recognized >> >> versions of facelet-taglib supported." and "2.0" is the only allowed >> >> value >> >> for this attribute. >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Jakob >> >> >> >> 2010/2/9 Matthias Wessendorf <mat...@apache.org> >> >>> >> >>> Deplyoing very simple JARs, like: >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12435313/MyFaces_Test.jar >> >>> >> >>> should work, out of the box. Doesn't the spec explicitly talk about >> >>> this >> >>> for backward compatibility? >> >>> Sure, when you extend the "old" Facelets classes, you have to have it >> >>> deployed >> >>> as well (and there is some parameter to disable Facelets2) >> >>> >> >>> -Matthias >> >>> >> >>> -- >> >>> Matthias Wessendorf >> >>> >> >>> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ >> >>> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf >> >>> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Matthias Wessendorf >> >> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ >> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf >> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf > > -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
