On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 7:41 AM, Gerhard
Petracekgerhard.petra...@gmail.com wrote:
+1 for the initial commit at [1]
why to an extension ? I'd like it to see it being part of core.
regards,
gerhard
[1] http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/extensions/scripting
http://www.irian.at
Your
in the original discussion we decided that.
you agreed as well. ;)
regards,
gerhard
http://www.irian.at
Your JSF powerhouse -
JSF Consulting, Development and
Courses in English and German
Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
2009/8/12 Matthias Wessendorf mat...@apache.org
On Wed, Aug
Gerhard Petracek schrieb:
in the original discussion we decided that.
you agreed as well. ;)
Besides that, it was one of the reasons why we opened an extension
subproject, scripting support definitely should be an extension until
we have a spec in this area.
The main issue with my
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 9:19 AM, Werner Punzwerner.p...@gmail.com wrote:
Gerhard Petracek schrieb:
in the original discussion we decided that.
you agreed as well. ;)
that does not mean I can rethink it. things change...
Besides that, it was one of the reasons why we opened an extension
Matthias Wessendorf schrieb:
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 9:19 AM, Werner Punzwerner.p...@gmail.com wrote:
Gerhard Petracek schrieb:
in the original discussion we decided that.
you agreed as well. ;)
that does not mean I can rethink it. things change...
Besides that, it was one of the reasons
@things change:
for sure - i just couldn't see a reason in this case. so i pointed to the
discussion we had some months ago.
(basically i'm fine with rethinking) anyway i agree with the arguments
mentioned by werner.
regards,
gerhard
http://www.irian.at
Your JSF powerhouse -
JSF Consulting,
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Gerhard
Petracekgerhard.petra...@gmail.com wrote:
@things change:
for sure - i just couldn't see a reason in this case. so i pointed to the
discussion we had some months ago.
(basically i'm fine with rethinking) anyway i agree with the arguments
mentioned by
+1 for starting in extension. When it's stable and properly tested, we
can always migrate it into the core.
Regards,
Jan-Kees
2009/8/12 Matthias Wessendorf mat...@apache.org:
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Gerhard
Petracekgerhard.petra...@gmail.com wrote:
@things change:
for sure - i just
Hello everyone. I am sort of overdue with my promised commit of the
myfaces groovy bindings, the reason simply was life itself.
Anway to make things finally clear I want to propose following.
I want to commit the bindings this week, but I want to opt for myfaces
2.0 instead of still going with
+1 for adding that to 2.0 only.
looking forward :-)
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 10:17 PM, Werner Punzwerner.p...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello everyone. I am sort of overdue with my promised commit of the myfaces
groovy bindings, the reason simply was life itself.
Anway to make things finally clear I
Hi
+1. I suppose this code conflict with MYFACES-2290 Add OSGi bundle
information and bundle classloader / activator, but we can see it in deep
later when we have committed this one.
regards
Leonardo Uribe
2009/8/11 Matthias Wessendorf mat...@apache.org
+1 for adding that to 2.0 only.
I dont think it will conflict, the reason for this is, I want to add the
option as web.xml override.
Which means a user who wants to use the groovy bindings has to add a
context param. If this param is not set nothing is done and the code
defaults to the code currently in existence.
The groovy
2009/8/11 Werner Punz werner.p...@gmail.com
I dont think it will conflict, the reason for this is, I want to add the
option as web.xml override.
Which means a user who wants to use the groovy bindings has to add a
context param. If this param is not set nothing is done and the code
defaults
I have to check the method out for what it does out for now nothing is
done in this regard.
My code works currently that way that over all jsf artefacts which can
be set via the faces-config proxies are wrapped around and the proxies
basically
dynamically reload the groovy classes if the file
Ok just read up about it, does not make sense to bind it with groovy.
VDL really is the view declaration nothing more, this does not mix well
with groovy :-)
Lets leave my bindings where they are at faces-config artefact level.
Werner
Leonardo Uribe schrieb:
2009/8/11 Werner Punz
+1 for the initial commit at [1]
regards,
gerhard
[1] http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/extensions/scripting
http://www.irian.at
Your JSF powerhouse -
JSF Consulting, Development and
Courses in English and German
Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
2009/8/12 Werner Punz
16 matches
Mail list logo
