Yes.- this is a BUG it needs to support more than just 2.0
(Dan/Ed commented on the open list)
-Matthias
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 2:35 PM, Matthias Wessendorf mat...@apache.org wrote:
nope, but the web.xml setting for Trinidad's alternate view handler;
it is complaining about the facelets
@ javax.faces.DISABLE_FACELET_JSF_VIEWHANDLER
I tried (Glassfish v3) to deploy a JSF 1.2 application (with Facelets
1.1.14) and that javax.faces.DISABLE_FACELET_JSF_VIEWHANDLER
parameter == true;
I get an error there as well :-)
-Matthias
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Jakob Korherr
have you installed the com.sun.facelets.FaceletViewHandler in faces-config?
and which error did you get?
2010/2/11 Matthias Wessendorf mat...@apache.org
@ javax.faces.DISABLE_FACELET_JSF_VIEWHANDLER
I tried (Glassfish v3) to deploy a JSF 1.2 application (with Facelets
1.1.14) and that
nope, but the web.xml setting for Trinidad's alternate view handler;
it is complaining about the facelets embedded faces-config
-Matthias
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Jakob Korherr jakob.korh...@gmail.com wrote:
have you installed the com.sun.facelets.FaceletViewHandler in faces-config?
IMHO the spec is very clear about this and the stuff in
the appendix is a spec bug. From the spec (10.1.2):
A decision was made early in this process to strive for backwards compatibility
between the latest popular version of Facelets and Facelets in JSF 2.0. The
sole determinant to backwards
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 10:44 AM, Ganesh gan...@j4fry.org wrote:
IMHO the spec is very clear about this and the stuff in the appendix is a
spec bug. From the spec (10.1.2):
A decision was made early in this process to strive for backwards
compatibility between the latest popular version of
No I have not filed any bugs. Feel free to file them ;)
Regards,
Jakob
2010/2/10 Matthias Wessendorf mat...@apache.org
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 10:44 AM, Ganesh gan...@j4fry.org wrote:
IMHO the spec is very clear about this and the stuff in the appendix is a
spec bug. From the spec
Deplyoing very simple JARs, like:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12435313/MyFaces_Test.jar
should work, out of the box. Doesn't the spec explicitly talk about this
for backward compatibility?
Sure, when you extend the old Facelets classes, you have to have it deployed
as well
On my opinion you have to differentiate between 1.x taglibs and 2.0 taglibs
in some way, because MyFaces cannot know if this taglib will or won't run.
If you can ensure that your 1.x-taglib runs with facelets 2.0 you simply
have to add version=2.0 to your taglib and it will function properly.
Hi
I agree with Jakob.
Just a small comment, doing some black box tests between myfaces and ri I
notice long time ago that ri cannot read faces-config.xml without have
version 2.0 in that file. It seems they fix that but a side effect is what
we are seeing right now (facelets taglibs 1.1.x
maybe I am conservative, but I doubt that it is a bug, to allow old
facelets-based tag JARs.
You are saying it is, right ?
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 7:04 PM, Leonardo Uribe lu4...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi
I agree with Jakob.
Just a small comment, doing some black box tests between myfaces and ri I
... on the other hand, the EG says, that JSF2.0 RT can be used to
deploy a JSF1.2 based application.
Since Facelets was just some random proprietary framework, ignoring
the old Facelets DTD is I
think correct;
Still it is IMO a bit lame.
-Matthias
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 7:20 PM, Matthias
Can it be made into a configuration option?
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Matthias Wessendorf mat...@apache.org wrote:
... on the other hand, the EG says, that JSF2.0 RT can be used to
deploy a JSF1.2 based application.
Since Facelets was just some random proprietary framework, ignoring
the
It is a bug to allow old facelets taglibs which are not marked with
version=2.0 with the built-in facelets implementation.
2010/2/9 Matthias Wessendorf mat...@apache.org
maybe I am conservative, but I doubt that it is a bug, to allow old
facelets-based tag JARs.
You are saying it is, right ?
Never mind. I see in the jira issue that it's possible to drop in the
old facelets implementation. That seems like the right approach to
me.
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 1:27 PM, Mike Kienenberger mkien...@gmail.com wrote:
Can it be made into a configuration option?
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 1:25
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 7:23 PM, Jakob Korherr jakob.korh...@gmail.com wrote:
It is a bug to allow old facelets taglibs which are not marked with
version=2.0 with the built-in facelets implementation.
do you mind filing one against them :-)
I wonder what they have to say for that...
-Matthias
...and, of course, when you extend old Facelets classes, this is NOT
supported.
However the JSF spec has provided a backdoor:
== javax.faces.DISABLE_FACELET_JSF_VIEWHANDLER
for that you need to ship old Facelets.
-Matthias
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 7:25 PM, Matthias Wessendorf mat...@apache.org
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 7:31 PM, Mike Kienenberger mkien...@gmail.com wrote:
Never mind. I see in the jira issue that it's possible to drop in the
old facelets implementation. That seems like the right approach to
me.
I see both ways; I think I don't like the fact that the RI has this bug :)
we could make a special log entry instead of just ignoring old facelets
libraries.
...and you do not have to set the config parameter if the
com.sun.facelets.FaceletViewHandler is installed in the faces-config.
MyFaces does this automatically!
2010/2/9 Matthias Wessendorf mat...@apache.org
On
Many Facelets taglibs don't use Facelets tag handlers,
but simply wrap some xhtml templates. Nothing will stop
these libraries to work with MyFaces if we allow old
version taglibs.
If we insist on refusing them people will simply switch
to Mojarra to get their application to run. The argument
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 6:26 AM, Ganesh gan...@j4fry.org wrote:
Many Facelets taglibs don't use Facelets tag handlers,
but simply wrap some xhtml templates. Nothing will stop these libraries to
work with MyFaces if we allow old version taglibs.
If we insist on refusing them people will simply
21 matches
Mail list logo
