No I have not filed any bugs. Feel free to file them ;) Regards, Jakob
2010/2/10 Matthias Wessendorf <mat...@apache.org> > 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 >
