Thomas, Thoughts on changing 2.3-next and 4.0 vs just changing the default for 4.0?
Thanks, Paul Nicolucci On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 4:42 AM Thomas Andraschko < andraschko.tho...@gmail.com> wrote: > for me its ok, so 0.25 ;) > > please also change the default value on the homepage > > Am Sa., 14. Jan. 2023 um 18:21 Uhr schrieb Paul Nicolucci < > pnicolu...@gmail.com>: > >> I'd like to propose that we disable this per default. Thomas, would you >> want a vote for this? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Paul Nicolucci >> >> On Thu, Jan 5, 2023 at 3:07 AM Thomas Andraschko < >> andraschko.tho...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Good question. >>> In theory it was just a nice experimental feature but it works quite >>> fine in real world and with performance benefits. >>> >>> But its configurable via context param, we just need to decide whether >>> its enabled or disabled per default. >>> >>> Am Do., 5. Jan. 2023 um 04:19 Uhr schrieb Paul Nicolucci < >>> pnicolu...@gmail.com>: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> While looking over some code in MyFaces I noticed in Faces 4.0 we have the >>>> following ELResolver: >>>> https://github.com/apache/myfaces/blob/main/impl/src/main/java/org/apache/myfaces/el/resolver/LambdaBeanELResolver.java >>>> >>>> This resolver is added to the resolver list here: >>>> https://github.com/apache/myfaces/blob/main/impl/src/main/java/org/apache/myfaces/el/DefaultELResolverBuilder.java#L154 >>>> >>>> Reading over the specification: >>>> https://jakarta.ee/specifications/faces/4.0/jakarta-faces-4.0.html#a2966 I >>>> wanted to >>>> start a discussion on the following point in the specification: >>>> *"These actual ELResolver instances must be added. It is not compliant to >>>> simply add other resolvers that preserve these semantics."* >>>> >>>> Do we think we're still spec compliant by not directly adding >>>> *jakarta.el.BeanELResolver* and instead adding*LambdaBeanELResolver* which >>>> extends *jakarta.el.BeanELResolver*? >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Paul Nicolucci >>>> >>>>
