nope, but the web.xml setting for Trinidad's alternate view handler; it is complaining about the facelets embedded faces-config
-Matthias On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Jakob Korherr <jakob.korh...@gmail.com> wrote: > have you installed the com.sun.facelets.FaceletViewHandler in faces-config? > and which error did you get? > > > 2010/2/11 Matthias Wessendorf <mat...@apache.org> >> >> @ "javax.faces.DISABLE_FACELET_JSF_VIEWHANDLER" >> >> I tried (Glassfish v3) to deploy a JSF 1.2 application (with Facelets >> 1.1.14) and that "javax.faces.DISABLE_FACELET_JSF_VIEWHANDLER" >> parameter ==> true; >> >> I get an error there as well :-) >> >> -Matthias >> >> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Jakob Korherr <jakob.korh...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > 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 >> > >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> 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
