Hi It seems the problem is that servlet 3.0 api requires jdk 1.6 to compile, and the classes we are using on implee6 has dependencies. That means, the classes on implee6 has version 49 but the ones in servlet 3.0 has version 50. The ones here:
http://repo2.maven.org/maven2/org/mortbay/jetty/servlet-api/3.0.PFD20090525/ compiles against JDK 1.5 but does not contains the required classes used on implee6. We have to let it as is. regards, Leonardo Uribe 2010/3/11 Jakob Korherr <jakob.korh...@gmail.com> > Hi, > > Thanks Leonardo! I just tried this out locally and it worked fine. So I'll > commit this for now! > > > Regards, > Jakob > > 2010/3/11 Leonardo Uribe <lu4...@gmail.com> > >> Hi >> >> Try this one: >> >> http://repo2.maven.org/maven2/org/mortbay/jetty/servlet-api/3.0.20100224/ >> >> It does not seem to have jdk 1.6 dependencies >> >> regards, >> >> Leonardo Uribe >> >> >> 2010/3/11 Jakob Korherr <jakob.korh...@gmail.com> >> >>> Maybe we can use a dependency to Servlet API 3.0 which is compiled >>> against JDK 5 instead of the javaee-web-api. Is there anything like that? >>> >>> Regards, >>> Jakob >>> >>> 2010/3/11 Jakob Korherr <jakob.korh...@gmail.com> >>> >>> Hi, >>>> >>>> >>>> "So the change has no sense outside myfaces impl jar. That means we only >>>> have two options: do it like this or remove the code." >>>> >>>> --> yeap! >>>> >>>> Of course this has to be documented and the mailing list (archive) is >>>> the first place it already is, which, for sure, is great. In addition, I >>>> think we should create a wiki-entry for this. >>>> >>>> Also and of course I think it is very important to have those >>>> discussions, but they have to be constructive. Opening the same "problems" >>>> again and again does not help anyone. Furthermore I openend this thread >>>> some >>>> days before I committed anything and the response was very good. So I think >>>> I did the right thing here. Nethertheless I know that it's not done with >>>> the >>>> commit. This stuff has to be discussed further, but the commit was a way to >>>> let everyone be able to test it for themselves. >>>> >>>> And your compilation error and your related concerns really do have to >>>> be discussed. Really, thank's for pointing that out, because I did not run >>>> into this error. However I _really_ can't imagine a scenario where this >>>> would affect anything on MyFaces. I really don't. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Jakob >>>> >>>> >>>> 2010/3/11 Leonardo Uribe <lu4...@gmail.com> >>>> >>>>> Hi >>>>> >>>>> 2010/3/11 Jakob Korherr <jakob.korh...@gmail.com> >>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> I totally agree with Jan-Kees. Just override the compiler plugin in >>>>>> implee6 to use jdk 6! >>>>>> >>>>>> Also I really don't see why you think it is such a big problem to have >>>>>> a class in the jar file which has other dependencies and another version >>>>>> when no other class has any relations to it. It's like a website with no >>>>>> link referring to it: you will never find it unless you know the real >>>>>> address of it! >>>>>> >>>>>> Furthermore if we put it into myfaces commons we can also drop it, >>>>>> because then it makes no sence. The user will rather continue to use the >>>>>> web.xml configuration than bundling some jar, which he maybe does not >>>>>> know >>>>>> that it even exists.. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> So the change has no sense outside myfaces impl jar. That means we only >>>>> have two options: do it like this or remove the code. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> And last but not least: Mojarra also has a similar JDK6 compiled class >>>>>> with Java EE 6 dependencies in their jsf-impl.jar. So why would it be a >>>>>> problem for MyFaces? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> The position from jsr-314-open mail list is as long as TCK test pass we >>>>> could do it, and if mojarra has something similar, we could do the same. >>>>> If >>>>> something happens we could remove it and that's all (that means if >>>>> something >>>>> happens we'll be forced to remove this feature from myfaces and that is >>>>> risky), since this is not part of the standard, but users should be aware >>>>> of >>>>> that implication. Note from this change, myfaces requires JDK 1.6 to be >>>>> compiled, but the classes inside api and impl modules requires JDK 1.5. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Please don't make this problem bigger as it is... >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I believe it is important to discuss the possible implications of a >>>>> change before commit it and make it clear to people (that's one idea about >>>>> opensource, give the people the power to know what's happening behind >>>>> courtains and the tools to change it). Just put some code because you like >>>>> it, or it is cool not always is enough. That's common sense, right?. Also >>>>> you have to keep into account this is a standard of some spec, not just a >>>>> custom library, so a lot of care is required before add a new feature >>>>> outside the spec. So, the idea is not make a problem bigger or start a >>>>> bizantine war that leads to nowhere, just benefit the community throught >>>>> constructive discussion, but for a discussion it is necessary a clear and >>>>> rational position, possible courses of action before start and a "open" >>>>> mind, that means, give yourself the possibility of change of opinion >>>>> anytime. Please note the benefit of this exercise, if someone wants to >>>>> check >>>>> why this stuff is done in this or that way, there is a source of knowledge >>>>> through the mailing list. Please think carefully about what "opensource" >>>>> word means. >>>>> >>>>> regards, >>>>> >>>>> Leonardo Uribe >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> Jakob >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 2010/3/11 Leonardo Uribe <lu4...@gmail.com> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have sended an email to jsr-314-open mail list just to confirm if >>>>>>> it is valid or not to do this kind of stuff. The problem is the class >>>>>>> involved on implee6 has dependencies with classes that needs JDK 6 to be >>>>>>> compiled, so in a JDK 1.5 environment it will crash if the classes are >>>>>>> loaded. It is true ease of development will suffer, but I think prevent >>>>>>> bugs >>>>>>> like this takes precedence. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> regards, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Leonardo Uribe >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2010/3/11 Jan-Kees van Andel <jankeesvanan...@gmail.com> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why not override the compiler plugin in the module to use JDK 6? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think the whole point about the module is ease of development and >>>>>>>> this will suffer when putting it in a separate jar. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> About the manual classpath scanning or other runtime stuff. This >>>>>>>> should not break because of JDK 6 stuff, since the bytecode should be >>>>>>>> backwards compatible. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> My 2 cents... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> /JK >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2010/3/11 Leonardo Uribe <lu4...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I'm working with jdk 1.5 and when I tried to compile current20 >>>>>>>>> branch I have an error. This means to create myfaces jars it should be >>>>>>>>> compiled with jdk 1.6, because implee6 has dependencies with jars >>>>>>>>> with java >>>>>>>>> 1.6 specific code: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [INFO] >>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>> [ERROR] BUILD FAILURE >>>>>>>>> [INFO] >>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>> [INFO] Compilation failure >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> D:\workspace\myfaces\current20\core\implee6\src\main\java\org\apache\myfaces\ee6 >>>>>>>>> \MyFacesContainerInitializer.java:[47,-1] cannot access >>>>>>>>> javax.servlet.ServletCon >>>>>>>>> tainerInitializer >>>>>>>>> bad class file: C:\Documents and >>>>>>>>> Settings\lu4242\.m2\repository\javax\javaee-web >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -api\6.0\javaee-web-api-6.0.jar(javax/servlet/ServletContainerInitializer.class) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> class file has wrong version 50.0, should be 49.0 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In theory, we can't do this, because if we do, myfaces-impl has one >>>>>>>>> class jdk 1.6 specific, and jsf 2.0 is jdk 1.5 compatible. Now, in the >>>>>>>>> practice this class is not loaded by any part of myfaces, but maybe >>>>>>>>> some >>>>>>>>> program that tries to scan the classpath and load this class into the >>>>>>>>> classpath will see the problem. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> My personal opinion is implee6 should have its own separate jar >>>>>>>>> with some OSGi specific stuff, so if someone wants to use it it >>>>>>>>> should put >>>>>>>>> three jars on the classpath: myfaces-api, myfaces-impl, >>>>>>>>> myfaces-implee6. We >>>>>>>>> have a lot of precedences for that kind of stuff (orchestra core and >>>>>>>>> core15 >>>>>>>>> for example, tomahawk sandbox and sandbox15). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I also think this code should be moved to myfaces commons, because >>>>>>>>> keep it as a module in core project means we have to use jdk 1.6 to >>>>>>>>> compile >>>>>>>>> all artifacts and we have a plugin that checks for jdk 1.5 >>>>>>>>> compatibility >>>>>>>>> that will fail (see checkJDK profile on myfaces impl pom). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Suggestions are welcome. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> regards, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Leonardo Uribe >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 2010/3/8 Jakob Korherr <jakob.korh...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So I committed everything. Please feel free to test it - I am >>>>>>>>>> curious about your opinions :) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>> Jakob >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 2010/3/8 Jakob Korherr <jakob.korh...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Since there don't seem to be any big concerns about this, I will >>>>>>>>>>> now commit the new submodule "implee6". >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>> Jakob >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 2010/3/8 Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petra...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> +1 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> regards, >>>>>>>>>>>> gerhard >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.irian.at >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Your JSF powerhouse - >>>>>>>>>>>> JSF Consulting, Development and >>>>>>>>>>>> Courses in English and German >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 2010/3/8 Werner Punz <werner.p...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> +1 for that idea, the less configuration the better. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Werner >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 07.03.10 15:44, schrieb Jakob Korherr: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we don't even need such a parameter, because the idea >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the listener just does nothing if there are already entries >>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> FacesServlet in web.xml! >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jakob >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2010/3/7 Jan-Kees van Andel <jankeesvanan...@gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:jankeesvanan...@gmail.com>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Agreed, I was only thinking of one parameter: A parameter >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to turn >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the entire StartupListener off. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I look at it as a binary thing. Either the developer >>>>>>>>>>>>>> chooses to go >>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the flow with no custimization, OR he chooses to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> customize >>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I.e. org.apache.myfaces.DISABLE_FACES_SERVLET_AUTODEPLOY = >>>>>>>>>>>>>> true >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (default false) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think this will cover all use cases, where some may >>>>>>>>>>>>>> require a bit >>>>>>>>>>>>>> more configuration, but still work... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> /JK >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2010/3/7 Jakob Korherr <jakob.korh...@gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:jakob.korh...@gmail.com>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yep! >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can discuss this stuff when the submodule is in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> place. Such >>>>>>>>>>>>>> things are very easy to change/configure in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> StartupListener. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, I think we should come up with a very standard >>>>>>>>>>>>>> default >>>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration. If the user wants something different, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> he will >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have to configure the mapping himself in the web.xml >>>>>>>>>>>>>> just as it >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is now. I am not a fan of too many configuration >>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameters >>>>>>>>>>>>>> which interfere with other configuration methods. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jakob >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2010/3/7 Jan-Kees van Andel <jankeesvanan...@gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:jankeesvanan...@gmail.com>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words: Convention over configuration ;-) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I just think it's important to pick sensible >>>>>>>>>>>>>> defaults and to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> be able to turn it off, for example using a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> context-param. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> For example, I think the mapping *.xhtml should >>>>>>>>>>>>>> also be >>>>>>>>>>>>>> default, but a developer must be able to turn >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *.xhtml off, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> since it's a widely used extension also outside of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> JSF... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jan-Kees >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2010/3/7 Jakob Korherr <jakob.korh...@gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:jakob.korh...@gmail.com>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Bernd, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> For some users it may be so ;) :D >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Look Bernd, it's not that big thing. It's just >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a class >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and a text file. So it is by no means a problem >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to ship >>>>>>>>>>>>>> this with MyFaces Core 2. Also Mojarra does >>>>>>>>>>>>>> something >>>>>>>>>>>>>> similar too! >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> To your question: Nope! I just add the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> FacesServlet and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the standard mappings /faces/*, *.jsf and maybe >>>>>>>>>>>>>> also >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *.faces, if there are no entries for the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> FacesServlet in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the web.xml. If a user wants something special, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> he do >>>>>>>>>>>>>> will have to configure it in his web.xml. In >>>>>>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>>>>>> scenario my StartupListener will just do >>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jakob >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2010/3/6 Bernd Bohmann < >>>>>>>>>>>>>> bernd.bohm...@googlemail.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:bernd.bohm...@googlemail.com>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello Jakob, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> do you really think adding an other >>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency is a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> real problem? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> How do you configure prefix or suffix >>>>>>>>>>>>>> mapping? For >>>>>>>>>>>>>> each possible >>>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration option an own impl version? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bernd >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 4:48 PM, Jakob >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Korherr >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jakob.korh...@gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:jakob.korh...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Hi Bernd, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > If this module wouldn't be a part of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> myfaces >>>>>>>>>>>>>> core, the users still would >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > have to configure something to run their >>>>>>>>>>>>>> MyFaces-2 apps in a EE6 container >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > (e.g. they'd have to include myfaces >>>>>>>>>>>>>> commons), >>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is not the target. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > target is to get rid of any unnecessary >>>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration to make the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > development process easier! >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Jakob >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > 2010/3/6 Bernd Bohmann >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <bernd.bohm...@googlemail.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:bernd.bohm...@googlemail.com>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> Hello Jakob, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> I'm not really sure that this feature >>>>>>>>>>>>>> should be >>>>>>>>>>>>>> part of myfaces-core. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> Maybe myfaces-commons would be a better >>>>>>>>>>>>>> place. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> But we can change this >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> later. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> +1 on commiting the module. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> Regards >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> Bernd >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 4:32 PM, Jakob >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Korherr >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jakob.korh...@gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:jakob.korh...@gmail.com>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > Hi Jan-Kees, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > Great :) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > I am currently testing on Tomcat, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jetty, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> GlassFish v3 and JBoss 6! >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > Regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > Jakob >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > 2010/3/6 Jan-Kees van Andel >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jankeesvanan...@gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:jankeesvanan...@gmail.com>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> Hey, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> If it works on Jetty and Tomcat, I'd >>>>>>>>>>>>>> say +1 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> on committing the module. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> I can't think of big issues with >>>>>>>>>>>>>> committing >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it as a separate module. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> And >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> we can always revert if we have to. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> Cool, can't wait to check it out! On >>>>>>>>>>>>>> what >>>>>>>>>>>>>> appserver are you testing >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> this >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> stuff Jakob? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> Jan-Kees >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> 2010/3/6 Jakob Korherr >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <jakob.korh...@gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:jakob.korh...@gmail.com>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>> Hi guys, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>> I managed to introduce the core >>>>>>>>>>>>>> submodule >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "implee6" on my local >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>> machine. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>> This new submodule includes Java EE >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependencies and thus you can >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>> use >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>> Servlet API 3.0 and other new >>>>>>>>>>>>>> things in it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>> When building MyFaces, this new >>>>>>>>>>>>>> submodule is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> built before the normal >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>> impl >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>> submodule. Then the .class and the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> .java >>>>>>>>>>>>>> files are "injected" into the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>> impl-build. This is very similar to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> how >>>>>>>>>>>>>> shared_impl is included in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>> myfaces-impl build at the moment, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>>>>>>> without recompilation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>> In this way we are able to use the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> new >>>>>>>>>>>>>> services approach of Java EE 6 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>> get rid of the Faces Servlet >>>>>>>>>>>>>> entries in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> web.xml, because in any Java >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>> EE 6 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>> container we can configure this >>>>>>>>>>>>>> dynamically >>>>>>>>>>>>>> at startup (see >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>> MYFACES-2579 for >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>> details). This also works >>>>>>>>>>>>>> fantastically on >>>>>>>>>>>>>> my local machine - it's >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>> really >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>> cool! >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>> Also with this method we are still >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Java EE 5 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> complaint, because the EE >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>> 6 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>> classes just won't get loaded in a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> non EE 6 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> environment, because there >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>> are >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>> no dependencies from impl or shared >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to them. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> They are only called (and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>> loaded) by a Java EE 6 container >>>>>>>>>>>>>> via the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> services definition. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>> Furthermore I noticed that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mojarra guys >>>>>>>>>>>>>> also include a similar >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>> solution to this in their newest >>>>>>>>>>>>>> build! >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>> Now, before I commit something of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> this, I >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wanted to ask if there are >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>> any >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>> objections with this proposal. If >>>>>>>>>>>>>> so, please >>>>>>>>>>>>>> tell me your concerns! >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>> Jakob >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
