Re: MyFaces 4.0 LambdaBeanELResolver discussion
Doenst also matter for me 2.3-next is no spec compliant anyway ;) Am Di., 17. Jan. 2023 um 14:49 Uhr schrieb Melloware : > I am OK with either you can leave 2.3-next and just change 4.0 if you want. > > > On 1/17/2023 8:46 AM, Paul Nicolucci wrote: > > 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 > >
Re: MyFaces 4.0 LambdaBeanELResolver discussion
I am OK with either you can leave 2.3-next and just change 4.0 if you want. On 1/17/2023 8:46 AM, Paul Nicolucci wrote: 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 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 : 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 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 : 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
Re: MyFaces 4.0 LambdaBeanELResolver discussion
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
Re: MyFaces 4.0 LambdaBeanELResolver discussion
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 >>> >>>
Re: MyFaces 4.0 LambdaBeanELResolver discussion
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 >> >>
Re: MyFaces 4.0 LambdaBeanELResolver discussion
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 > >
MyFaces 4.0 LambdaBeanELResolver discussion
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
