good point. I remember when I tried to replace some JARs inside a
container (it worked)
but our QA told me that this will cause problems @ customers`s side.
They pay much money for a container and replacing JARs can cause loose
of support form the vendor side.
Even when the customers
To: MyFaces Development
Subject: Re: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors
meeting
Stan,
will it be possible to configure another JSF 1.2 implementation in
JBoss, when the release is out? Meaning - will it be possible to put
the RI out and MyFaces (in a 1.2 compatible version
Subject: Re: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors
meeting
Stan,
will it be possible to configure another JSF 1.2 implementation in
JBoss, when the release is out? Meaning - will it be possible to put
the RI out and MyFaces (in a 1.2 compatible version) in, if that is
desired
Subject: Re: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors
meeting
Stan,
will it be possible to configure another JSF 1.2 implementation
in
JBoss, when the release is out? Meaning - will it be possible to
put
the RI out and MyFaces (in a 1.2 compatible version
On 5/10/06, Werner Punz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dennis Byrne schrieb: Also, JBoss has decided to use the RI instead of MyFaces for JBoss 5. The decision was purely one of time and resources.By shipping the RI we will be able to pass the JEE 5 TCK sooner.
We need to branch for 1.2 and get
More precisely, you should not be allowed to replace the container's 1.2
implementation with a 1.1 implementation ... that would be like trying to
replace the Servlet 2.5 implementation built in to the container with a
Servlet 2.4 or 2.3 implementation by trying to include the relevant jars of
Anyway, let`s do the JSF 1.2 impl. Java EE 5 will not be part of
production at big big big customers. so containers like Geronimo or
OC4J (just to name two) will be able to take the MyFaces JSF 1.2 impl
to their system
I can't force anyone to share my opinion, but I would like to get a consensus
Stan-
Also, JBoss has decided to use the RI instead of MyFaces for JBoss 5. The
decision was purely one of time and resources. By shipping the RI we will
be able to pass the JEE 5 TCK sooner. It also means that I can be
reassigned to other JSF-related projects.
Which web-container you are
Hi Stan, Hi all,
This is really bad news for our community.
I'm personally very sad that JBoss has decided to choose this path.
Most of you probably know that relationship between JBoss and the ASF
was not always free of conflicts in the past. It's also no secret that
JBoss never was happy about
To: MyFaces Development
Subject: Re: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors
meeting
Stan-
Also, JBoss has decided to use the RI instead of MyFaces for JBoss
5.
The
decision was purely one of time and resources. By shipping the RI
we
will
be able to pass the JEE 5 TCK sooner
You mentioned that this decision was because of time and resources.
There is no reason to doubt, of course. Stan, don't get me wrong. I
appreciate your contributions and thank you for your offer to commit
the 1.2 stuff. Perhaps you where a little bit frustrated to get not
much support from
Stan's cycles aside, it's probably just a case of JBoss wanting to have
all of their ducks in order for their next AS release. Going with the
'stable' RI 1.2 right now is one issue they don't need to worry about in
the immediate future.
That's not to say that JBoss couldn't easily switch over
Dennis Byrne schrieb:
Also, JBoss has decided to use the RI instead of MyFaces for JBoss 5.
The decision was purely one of time and resources. By shipping the RI
we will be able to pass the JEE 5 TCK sooner.
We need to branch for 1.2 and get moving.
Btw. if anyone has not noticed yet, Craig
Also, JBoss has decided to use the RI instead of MyFaces for JBoss 5.
The decision was purely one of time and resources. By shipping the RI
we will be able to pass the JEE 5 TCK sooner.
We need to branch for 1.2 and get moving.
Dennis Byrne
14 matches
Mail list logo
