On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 10:44 AM, Ganesh <gan...@j4fry.org> wrote: > IMHO the spec is very clear about this and the stuff in the appendix is a > spec bug. From the spec (10.1.2): > > A decision was made early in this process to strive for backwards > compatibility between the latest popular version of Facelets and Facelets in > JSF 2.0. The sole determinant to backwards compatibility lies in the answer > to the question, “is there any Java code in the application, or in libraries > used by the application, that extends from or depends on any class in > package com.sun.facelets and/or its sub-packages?” > ■ If the answer to this question is “yes”, Facelets in JSF 2.0 is not > backwards compatibile with Facelets and such an application must continue to > bundle the Facelets jar file along with the application, continue to set the > Facelets configuration parameters, and also set the > javax.faces.DISABLE_FACELET_JSF_VIEWHANDLER > <context-param> to true. Please see Section 11.1.3 “Application > Configuration Parameters” for details on this > option. Any code that extends or depends on any class in package > com.sun.facelets and/or its sub-packages > must be modified to depend on the appropriate classes in package > javax.faces.webapp.vdl and/or its subpackages.
yes (see previous email(s)) > ■ If the answer to this question is “no”, Facelets in JSF 2.0 is backwards > compatible with pre-JSF 2.0 Facelets and such an application must not > continue to bundle the Facelets jar file along with the application, and > must not continue to set the Facelets configuration parameters. > Thankfully, most applications that use Facelets fall into the latter > category, or, if they fall in the former, their dependence will easily be > migrated to the new public classes. ok. please; file a bug on that appendix thing. thjx -m > > Best regards, > Ganesh > > Matthias Wessendorf schrieb: >> >> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 6:26 AM, Ganesh <gan...@j4fry.org> wrote: >>> >>> Many Facelets taglibs don't use Facelets tag handlers, >>> but simply wrap some xhtml templates. Nothing will stop these libraries >>> to >>> work with MyFaces if we allow old version taglibs. >>> If we insist on refusing them people will simply switch to Mojarra to get >>> their application to run. >> >> I know; that's what I meant with my comment before >> >>> The argument of a xsd:restriction in the spec will >>> help little. Just >>> taking old Facelets is *not* a solution, because the >>> rest of the application may want to use the new features. >>> Please try filing this as a bug to Mojarra as Matthias >>> proposed - if they fix it, MyFaces may insist on version=2.0, but if they >>> don't I think we shouldn't >>> either. >> >> I agree >> >>> I've carried the question whether a JSF 2.0 compatible implementation is >>> required to refuse old version facelets taglibs into the EG - let's see, >>> what they have to say >> >> technically, I think now we are correct. >> >> @Jakob: Did you create such a bug against the RI ? >> (that they allow "old" Facelets) maybe another on >> not being (too) clear in the spec about it... >> -Matthias >> >>> on this ... >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Ganesh >>>> >>>> I see both ways; I think I don't like the fact that the RI has this >>>> "bug" >>>> :) >>>> So, end of the story is, almost everybody will blame this to us ;-) >>>> "Oh, crappy MyFaces doesn't work" etc :) All the FUD! :) >> >> >> > -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
