Re: [core] Introducing implee6 - MYFACES-2579
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
Re: [core] Introducing implee6 - MYFACES-2579
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
Re: [core] Introducing implee6 - MYFACES-2579
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:
Re: [core] Introducing implee6 - MYFACES-2579
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.. 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? Please don't make this problem bigger as it is... 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.
Re: [core] Introducing implee6 - MYFACES-2579
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
Re: [core] Introducing implee6 - MYFACES-2579
I agree with Leonardo that changes which affect our base requirements (jdk 6 instead of jdk 5) and which could compromise our certification warrant discussion rather than a commit-and-hope-no-one-complains attitude. Otherwise, without discussion, how would we know that Mojarra allows it? On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Leonardo Uribe lu4...@gmail.com wrote: 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
Re: [core] Introducing implee6 - MYFACES-2579
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
Re: [core] Introducing implee6 - MYFACES-2579
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
Re: [core] Introducing implee6 - MYFACES-2579
+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.
Re: [core] Introducing implee6 - MYFACES-2579
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
Re: [core] Introducing implee6 - MYFACES-2579
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
Re: [core] Introducing implee6 - MYFACES-2579
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 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 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 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 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 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 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
Re: [core] Introducing implee6 - MYFACES-2579
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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
Re: [core] Introducing implee6 - MYFACES-2579
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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
Re: [core] Introducing implee6 - MYFACES-2579
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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
Re: [core] Introducing implee6 - MYFACES-2579
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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
Re: [core] Introducing implee6 - MYFACES-2579
+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
Re: [core] Introducing implee6 - MYFACES-2579
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 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
Re: [core] Introducing implee6 - MYFACES-2579
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 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 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
Re: [core] Introducing implee6 - MYFACES-2579
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 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 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 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
Re: [core] Introducing implee6 - MYFACES-2579
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 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 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 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 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
Re: [core] Introducing implee6 - MYFACES-2579
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 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 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 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 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 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
