Hi The problem is the spec is not explicit about that. I think the way it this written those paragraph are as if it was a "guideline" and that's is the problem because this should be explicit.
The behavior proposed (throw ClassNotFoundException or ClassCastException and kick all users to use facelets 1.1.x) is valid, so it is ok to commit it. regards, Leonardo Uribe 2010/2/25 Jakob Korherr <jakob.korh...@gmail.com> > Hi, > > But the users DO want to run the "old" facelets taglibs and, as discussed > before, 95% of the "old" taglibs don't rely on com.sun.facelets classes, > they just define tags via xhtml files. > > If they get a ClassCastException the just have to use the old > facelets-1.1.x. This is excatly what the spec says! > > > Regards, > Jakob > > 2010/2/25 Leonardo Uribe <lu4...@gmail.com> > >> Hi >> >> If we read every facelet 1.1.x tag lib xml file, it is possible to get >> ClassNotFoundException. The problem with this behavior is that it does not >> give the chance to users to fix it without change the original jar file. >> >> >> regards, >> >> Leonardo Uribe >> >> 2010/2/25 Jakob Korherr <jakob.korh...@gmail.com> >> >>> Hi Leo, >>> >>> It is a really easy fix - I just removed the version check in >>> TagLibraryConfig to make "old" libraries work. If the EG changes the spec in >>> this field we can apply this later. In the meantime, I think we clearly >>> should support "old" facelets taglibs. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Jakob >>> >>> 2010/2/25 Leonardo Uribe <lu4...@gmail.com> >>> >>> Hi >>>> >>>> Before commit it I would like to have the description about how this >>>> should work and ask or notify the EG about this behavior (so if they decide >>>> something different we have a chance to do it right). Since ri is doing >>>> something in this field, I think we can commit a solution for that. >>>> >>>> regards, >>>> >>>> Leonardo Uribe >>>> >>>> 2010/2/25 Jakob Korherr <jakob.korh...@gmail.com> >>>> >>>> I'll do it! I also have a working version running locally at the moment, >>>>> I just have to test it a little more. Then I'll commit it ;) >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Jakob >>>>> >>>>> 2010/2/25 Matthias Wessendorf <mat...@apache.org> >>>>> >>>>> Yeah, I understand that. >>>>>> >>>>>> Any interest in helping with the fix ? :) >>>>>> >>>>>> -Matthias >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 8:47 AM, Ganesh <gan...@j4fry.org> wrote: >>>>>> > Also this blocks me from testing the beta with DojoFaces which might >>>>>> reveal >>>>>> > other issues ... >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Best regards, >>>>>> > Ganesh >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Matthias Wessendorf schrieb: >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Again... >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> MYFACES-2543 >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> *snip* >>>>>> >> 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. >>>>>> >> *snip* >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> So, this is actually blocking a reasonable use-case. Please keep >>>>>> the >>>>>> >> bug open ;-) >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> -Matthias >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Matthias Wessendorf >>>>>> >>>>>> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ >>>>>> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf >>>>>> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
