Re: Yan:: svn commit: r1042754 - /openwebbeans/trunk/webbeans-jsf/src/main/resources/META-INF/faces-config.xml
Investigating this is taking longer than I hoped. There's a tck test for
6.4.3, but it doesn't test most of the requirements in 6.4.3 and it's not clear
to me that it has any relevance to how EL would work in a jsp or jsf page since
the test doesn't involve a jsp or jsf. I enhanced the test to check the
destroy at end of evaluation and new expression results in new bean
requirements and now it fails in geronimo with or without the modification in
faces-config.xml because the beans aren't getting destroyed after expression
evaluation. I'm going to try writing an actual jsp page to check if it works.
The tck test is
org.jboss.jsr299.tck.tests.lookup.el.ResolutionByNameTest
and my altered method is
@Test
@SpecAssertion(section=6.4.3, id=a)
public void testQualifiedNameLookup()
{
assert
getCurrentConfiguration().getEl().evaluateValueExpression(#{(game.value ==
'foo' and game.value == 'foo') ? game.value == 'foo' : false}, Boolean.class);
assert getInstanceByType(Counter.class).getCount() == 1;
//original test stops here
assert getInstanceByType(Counter.class).getDestroy() == 1;
assert
getCurrentConfiguration().getEl().evaluateValueExpression(#{(game.value ==
'foo' and game.value == 'foo') ? game.value == 'foo' : false}, Boolean.class);
assert getInstanceByType(Counter.class).getCount() == 2;
assert getInstanceByType(Counter.class).getDestroy() == 2;
}
with the obvious corresponding changes in Counter and Game.
thanks
david jencks
On Dec 7, 2010, at 9:49 AM, David Jencks wrote:
I'm investigating this further. I don't see any jcdi tck failures in
geronimo with my patch so I'd like to determine if the requirements in 6.4.3
are actually tested.
thanks
david jencks
On Dec 7, 2010, at 5:27 AM, Gurkan Erdogdu wrote:
David,
Does it make sense?
- Original Message
From: Gurkan Erdogdu gurkanerdo...@yahoo.com
To: dev@openwebbeans.apache.org
Sent: Tue, December 7, 2010 8:55:45 AM
Subject: Re: Yan:: svn commit: r1042754 -
/openwebbeans/trunk/webbeans-jsf/src/main/resources/META-INF/faces-config.xml
Hello David,
Reason of installing OwbApplication is that after evaulating EL expression,
you
must destroy all dependent instances using in EL expression. (See
specification
section 6.4.3, Dependent Pseudo-scope and Unified EL).
Therefore we have to implement our own ValueExpression class. Our custom
ValueExpression is returned from
WrappedExpressionFactory#createValueExpression
(in webbeans-impl). OwbApplication#getExpressionFactory is responsible for
getting WrappedExpressionFactory for getting WrappedExpressionFactory.
As I said in my previons email, if developer wants to use OWB in JSF
applications, it must drop webbeans-jsf.jar into its classpath. Otherwise,
he is
not able to use spec. compliant OWB implementation.
Regards;
--Gurkan
- Original Message
From: David Jencks david_jen...@yahoo.com
To: dev@openwebbeans.apache.org
Sent: Mon, December 6, 2010 11:55:59 PM
Subject: Re: Yan:: svn commit: r1042754 -
/openwebbeans/trunk/webbeans-jsf/src/main/resources/META-INF/faces-config.xml
Irrespective of what happens to this commit, do you see any spec support for
installing OwbApplicationFactory for every jsf-aware web beans app? AFAICT
there is none and installing it is a convenience for users that they may or
may
not want. If you see something in the spec contrary to this I would like to
know about it. Since I don't see any spec support for this I wonder if
installing it automatically results in portable apps.
thanks
david jencks
On Dec 6, 2010, at 12:24 PM, Gurkan Erdogdu wrote:
Hi David
we designed owb as a plugin way. When he wants to add jsf support, he
simply
drops webeansjsf.jar into classpath. Removing factory from faces config
prohibits it. Therefore this issue must be resolved on geronimo side
instead of
owb site. moreover, not every jsf application must be assumed as cdi
application. for being cdi, there exist beans.xml under web-inf.therefore
i
will revert this change.
Pzt, 06 Ara 2010 20:19 EET tarihinde djen...@apache.org şöyle yazdı:
Author: djencks
Date: Mon Dec 6 18:19:24 2010
New Revision: 1042754
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1042754view=rev
Log:
OWB-505 don't install OwbApplicationFactory by default
Modified:
openwebbeans/trunk/webbeans-jsf/src/main/resources/META-INF/faces-config.xml
Modified:
openwebbeans/trunk/webbeans-jsf/src/main/resources/META-INF/faces-config.xml
URL:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openwebbeans/trunk/webbeans-jsf/src/main/resources/META-INF/faces-config.xml?rev=1042754r1=1042753r2=1042754view=diff
==
---
openwebbeans/trunk/webbeans-jsf/src/main/resources/META-INF/faces-config.xml
(original)
+++
Re: Yan:: svn commit: r1042754 - /openwebbeans/trunk/webbeans-jsf/src/main/resources/META-INF/faces-config.xml
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 1:25 PM, David Jencks david_jen...@yahoo.com wrote: Investigating this is taking longer than I hoped. There's a tck test for 6.4.3, but it doesn't test most of the requirements in 6.4.3 and it's not clear to me that it has any relevance to how EL would work in a jsp or jsf page since the test doesn't involve a jsp or jsf. I enhanced the test to check the destroy at end of evaluation and new expression results in new bean requirements and now it fails in geronimo with or without the modification in faces-config.xml because the beans aren't getting destroyed after expression evaluation. I'm going to try writing an actual jsp page to check if it works. FYI I'm not sure OWB-401 is actually resolved.
Re: Yan:: svn commit: r1042754 - /openwebbeans/trunk/webbeans-jsf/src/main/resources/META-INF/faces-config.xml
David,
This is for JSF pages not an ordinary JSP pages. This is the reason why we
registered application factory.
--Gurkan
- Original Message
From: David Jencks david_jen...@yahoo.com
To: dev@openwebbeans.apache.org
Sent: Wed, December 8, 2010 8:25:29 PM
Subject: Re: Yan:: svn commit: r1042754 -
/openwebbeans/trunk/webbeans-jsf/src/main/resources/META-INF/faces-config.xml
Investigating this is taking longer than I hoped. There's a tck test for
6.4.3,
but it doesn't test most of the requirements in 6.4.3 and it's not clear to me
that it has any relevance to how EL would work in a jsp or jsf page since the
test doesn't involve a jsp or jsf. I enhanced the test to check the destroy
at
end of evaluation and new expression results in new bean requirements and
now
it fails in geronimo with or without the modification in faces-config.xml
because the beans aren't getting destroyed after expression evaluation. I'm
going to try writing an actual jsp page to check if it works.
The tck test is
org.jboss.jsr299.tck.tests.lookup.el.ResolutionByNameTest
and my altered method is
@Test
@SpecAssertion(section=6.4.3, id=a)
public void testQualifiedNameLookup()
{
assert
getCurrentConfiguration().getEl().evaluateValueExpression(#{(game.value ==
'foo' and game.value == 'foo') ? game.value == 'foo' : false}, Boolean.class);
assert getInstanceByType(Counter.class).getCount() == 1;
//original test stops here
assert getInstanceByType(Counter.class).getDestroy() == 1;
assert
getCurrentConfiguration().getEl().evaluateValueExpression(#{(game.value ==
'foo' and game.value == 'foo') ? game.value == 'foo' : false}, Boolean.class);
assert getInstanceByType(Counter.class).getCount() == 2;
assert getInstanceByType(Counter.class).getDestroy() == 2;
}
with the obvious corresponding changes in Counter and Game.
thanks
david jencks
On Dec 7, 2010, at 9:49 AM, David Jencks wrote:
I'm investigating this further. I don't see any jcdi tck failures in
geronimo
with my patch so I'd like to determine if the requirements in 6.4.3 are
actually
tested.
thanks
david jencks
On Dec 7, 2010, at 5:27 AM, Gurkan Erdogdu wrote:
David,
Does it make sense?
- Original Message
From: Gurkan Erdogdu gurkanerdo...@yahoo.com
To: dev@openwebbeans.apache.org
Sent: Tue, December 7, 2010 8:55:45 AM
Subject: Re: Yan:: svn commit: r1042754 -
/openwebbeans/trunk/webbeans-jsf/src/main/resources/META-INF/faces-config.xml
Hello David,
Reason of installing OwbApplication is that after evaulating EL expression,
you
must destroy all dependent instances using in EL expression. (See
specification
section 6.4.3, Dependent Pseudo-scope and Unified EL).
Therefore we have to implement our own ValueExpression class. Our custom
ValueExpression is returned from
WrappedExpressionFactory#createValueExpression
(in webbeans-impl). OwbApplication#getExpressionFactory is responsible for
getting WrappedExpressionFactory for getting WrappedExpressionFactory.
As I said in my previons email, if developer wants to use OWB in JSF
applications, it must drop webbeans-jsf.jar into its classpath. Otherwise,
he
is
not able to use spec. compliant OWB implementation.
Regards;
--Gurkan
- Original Message
From: David Jencks david_jen...@yahoo.com
To: dev@openwebbeans.apache.org
Sent: Mon, December 6, 2010 11:55:59 PM
Subject: Re: Yan:: svn commit: r1042754 -
/openwebbeans/trunk/webbeans-jsf/src/main/resources/META-INF/faces-config.xml
Irrespective of what happens to this commit, do you see any spec support for
installing OwbApplicationFactory for every jsf-aware web beans app? AFAICT
there is none and installing it is a convenience for users that they may or
may
not want. If you see something in the spec contrary to this I would like to
know about it. Since I don't see any spec support for this I wonder if
installing it automatically results in portable apps.
thanks
david jencks
On Dec 6, 2010, at 12:24 PM, Gurkan Erdogdu wrote:
Hi David
we designed owb as a plugin way. When he wants to add jsf support, he
simply
drops webeansjsf.jar into classpath. Removing factory from faces config
prohibits it. Therefore this issue must be resolved on geronimo side
instead of
owb site. moreover, not every jsf application must be assumed as cdi
application. for being cdi, there exist beans.xml under web-inf.therefore
i
will revert this change.
Pzt, 06 Ara 2010 20:19 EET tarihinde djen...@apache.org şöyle yazdı:
Author: djencks
Date: Mon Dec 6 18:19:24 2010
New Revision: 1042754
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1042754view=rev
Log:
OWB-505 don't install OwbApplicationFactory by default
Modified:
openwebbeans/trunk/webbeans-jsf/src/main/resources/META-INF/faces-config.xml
Modified:
Re: Yan:: svn commit: r1042754 - /openwebbeans/trunk/webbeans-jsf/src/main/resources/META-INF/faces-config.xml
6.4.3 starts out...
Suppose a Unified EL expression in a JSF or JSP page...
I wasn't going to say anything until I had a test I believed, but I don't see
how the ApplicationFactory solution works for jsps, and I don't see how
something that works for jsps can fail to also work for jsf pages. So far I
still think the OwbApplicationFactory doesn't do anything useful, but I'm
keeping an open mind until I have more evidence.
thanks
david jencks
On Dec 8, 2010, at 11:37 AM, Gurkan Erdogdu wrote:
David,
This is for JSF pages not an ordinary JSP pages. This is the reason why we
registered application factory.
--Gurkan
- Original Message
From: David Jencks david_jen...@yahoo.com
To: dev@openwebbeans.apache.org
Sent: Wed, December 8, 2010 8:25:29 PM
Subject: Re: Yan:: svn commit: r1042754 -
/openwebbeans/trunk/webbeans-jsf/src/main/resources/META-INF/faces-config.xml
Investigating this is taking longer than I hoped. There's a tck test for
6.4.3,
but it doesn't test most of the requirements in 6.4.3 and it's not clear to
me
that it has any relevance to how EL would work in a jsp or jsf page since the
test doesn't involve a jsp or jsf. I enhanced the test to check the destroy
at
end of evaluation and new expression results in new bean requirements and
now
it fails in geronimo with or without the modification in faces-config.xml
because the beans aren't getting destroyed after expression evaluation. I'm
going to try writing an actual jsp page to check if it works.
The tck test is
org.jboss.jsr299.tck.tests.lookup.el.ResolutionByNameTest
and my altered method is
@Test
@SpecAssertion(section=6.4.3, id=a)
public void testQualifiedNameLookup()
{
assert
getCurrentConfiguration().getEl().evaluateValueExpression(#{(game.value ==
'foo' and game.value == 'foo') ? game.value == 'foo' : false},
Boolean.class);
assert getInstanceByType(Counter.class).getCount() == 1;
//original test stops here
assert getInstanceByType(Counter.class).getDestroy() == 1;
assert
getCurrentConfiguration().getEl().evaluateValueExpression(#{(game.value ==
'foo' and game.value == 'foo') ? game.value == 'foo' : false},
Boolean.class);
assert getInstanceByType(Counter.class).getCount() == 2;
assert getInstanceByType(Counter.class).getDestroy() == 2;
}
with the obvious corresponding changes in Counter and Game.
thanks
david jencks
On Dec 7, 2010, at 9:49 AM, David Jencks wrote:
I'm investigating this further. I don't see any jcdi tck failures in
geronimo
with my patch so I'd like to determine if the requirements in 6.4.3 are
actually
tested.
thanks
david jencks
On Dec 7, 2010, at 5:27 AM, Gurkan Erdogdu wrote:
David,
Does it make sense?
- Original Message
From: Gurkan Erdogdu gurkanerdo...@yahoo.com
To: dev@openwebbeans.apache.org
Sent: Tue, December 7, 2010 8:55:45 AM
Subject: Re: Yan:: svn commit: r1042754 -
/openwebbeans/trunk/webbeans-jsf/src/main/resources/META-INF/faces-config.xml
Hello David,
Reason of installing OwbApplication is that after evaulating EL expression,
you
must destroy all dependent instances using in EL expression. (See
specification
section 6.4.3, Dependent Pseudo-scope and Unified EL).
Therefore we have to implement our own ValueExpression class. Our custom
ValueExpression is returned from
WrappedExpressionFactory#createValueExpression
(in webbeans-impl). OwbApplication#getExpressionFactory is responsible for
getting WrappedExpressionFactory for getting WrappedExpressionFactory.
As I said in my previons email, if developer wants to use OWB in JSF
applications, it must drop webbeans-jsf.jar into its classpath. Otherwise,
he
is
not able to use spec. compliant OWB implementation.
Regards;
--Gurkan
- Original Message
From: David Jencks david_jen...@yahoo.com
To: dev@openwebbeans.apache.org
Sent: Mon, December 6, 2010 11:55:59 PM
Subject: Re: Yan:: svn commit: r1042754 -
/openwebbeans/trunk/webbeans-jsf/src/main/resources/META-INF/faces-config.xml
Irrespective of what happens to this commit, do you see any spec support
for
installing OwbApplicationFactory for every jsf-aware web beans app? AFAICT
there is none and installing it is a convenience for users that they may or
may
not want. If you see something in the spec contrary to this I would like
to
know about it. Since I don't see any spec support for this I wonder if
installing it automatically results in portable apps.
thanks
david jencks
On Dec 6, 2010, at 12:24 PM, Gurkan Erdogdu wrote:
Hi David
we designed owb as a plugin way. When he wants to add jsf support, he
simply
drops webeansjsf.jar into classpath. Removing factory from faces config
prohibits it. Therefore this issue must be resolved on geronimo side
instead of
owb site. moreover, not every jsf
