You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tomee.apache.org by David Blevins <da...@gmail.com> on 2012/01/04 08:08:41 UTC
Re: Inclusion of MyFace API in javaee-api jar
Didn't seem there were any objections to yanking MyFaces API from the javaee-api jar. Speak up if you have other thoughts.
Will aim to release this tomorrow if possible. Happy to wait -- just say the word :)
-David
On Oct 28, 2011, at 1:47 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> maybe we can wait Jon talk (tuesday) before doing it?
>
> - Romain
>
>
> 2011/10/28 David Blevins <da...@gmail.com>
>
>> We should probably yank the myfaces-api from the current javaee-api jar
>> snapshot.
>>
>> Seems this jar is really an implementation and if someone wanted to use a
>> different Faces implementation they would be unable to do so.
>>
>>
>> -David
>>
>> On Oct 28, 2011, at 12:53 PM, Matt Benson wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 2:46 PM, David Blevins <da...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>> Quick question on the org.apache.myfaces.core:myfaces-api jar.
>>>>
>>>> Is it tied to MyFaces in some way? Guessing the answer is, yes, as it
>> is labeled "myfaces-api" and not something more generic like "faces-api"
>>>>
>>>> If the answer is, no, then the follow up is how often does its contents
>> change?
>>>>
>>>> If it is stable and only changed once in a while, we might include it in
>> the javaee-api jar we produce from OpenEJB/TomEE. We don't include JavaMail
>> for example as it really isn't an API but an actual implementation. Seems
>> like that is the case here.
>>>
>>> Nail on the head and all that. :)
>>>
>>> Matt
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -David
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
Re: Inclusion of MyFace API in javaee-api jar
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>.
I once tried to replace the tomcat el-api.jar with EL-2.2 from both javax.el-api and juel-api, and both broke tomcat.
I also tried to run juel with javax.el-api which also didn't work, same the other way around ...
LieGrue,
strub
----- Original Message -----
> From: David Blevins <da...@gmail.com>
> To: dev@openejb.apache.org; Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>
> Cc:
> Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2012 5:38 PM
> Subject: Re: Inclusion of MyFace API in javaee-api jar
>
>
> On Jan 4, 2012, at 12:37 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
>
>> actually most of the other javaee APIs share the same problem like myfaces.
>
> The only other one that we've had issues with is JavaMail. That one
> doesn't even have an impl jar its that bad.
>
> Maybe servlet, though not sure as Geronimo has used the same servlet API jar
> with Tomcat and Jetty for years.
>
>> E.g. you cannot exchange javax.el-api.jar with the tomcat or juel versions,
> because they really must fit to their impl jars! They are all API compatible,
> but _not_ runtime compatible!
>
> Wasn't aware about the EL jar. /me grumbles about the concept of an api vs
> implementation :)
>
> Do you recall any details about EL? Will dig around, but if you have any
> pointers that'd be great.
>
>> The CDI and atinject apis are fine in this regard, not 100% sure about
> javax.validation-api.
>
> Picked through the geronimo-validation_1.0_spec source just to be sure. It
> looks good.
>
>
>
> -David
>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <je...@gmail.com>
>>> To: dev@openejb.apache.org
>>> Cc:
>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2012 8:14 AM
>>> Subject: Re: Inclusion of MyFace API in javaee-api jar
>>>
>>> No no, go ahead!
>>>
>>> Jean-Louis
>>>
>>> 2012/1/4 David Blevins <da...@gmail.com>
>>>
>>>> Didn't seem there were any objections to yanking MyFaces API
> from the
>>>> javaee-api jar. Speak up if you have other thoughts.
>>>>
>>>> Will aim to release this tomorrow if possible. Happy to wait --
> just say
>>>> the word :)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -David
>>>>
>>>> On Oct 28, 2011, at 1:47 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> maybe we can wait Jon talk (tuesday) before doing it?
>>>>>
>>>>> - Romain
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2011/10/28 David Blevins <da...@gmail.com>
>>>>>
>>>>>> We should probably yank the myfaces-api from the current
>>> javaee-api jar
>>>>>> snapshot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Seems this jar is really an implementation and if someone
> wanted
>>> to use
>>>> a
>>>>>> different Faces implementation they would be unable to do
> so.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Oct 28, 2011, at 12:53 PM, Matt Benson wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 2:46 PM, David Blevins <
>>>> david.blevins@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Quick question on the
> org.apache.myfaces.core:myfaces-api
>>> jar.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is it tied to MyFaces in some way? Guessing the
> answer
>>> is, yes, as it
>>>>>> is labeled "myfaces-api" and not something more
> generic
>>> like "faces-api"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If the answer is, no, then the follow up is how
> often does
>>> its
>>>> contents
>>>>>> change?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If it is stable and only changed once in a while,
> we might
>>> include it
>>>> in
>>>>>> the javaee-api jar we produce from OpenEJB/TomEE. We
> don't
>>> include
>>>> JavaMail
>>>>>> for example as it really isn't an API but an actual
>>> implementation.
>>>> Seems
>>>>>> like that is the case here.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nail on the head and all that. :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Matt
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
Re: Inclusion of MyFace API in javaee-api jar
Posted by David Blevins <da...@gmail.com>.
On Jan 4, 2012, at 12:37 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
> actually most of the other javaee APIs share the same problem like myfaces.
The only other one that we've had issues with is JavaMail. That one doesn't even have an impl jar its that bad.
Maybe servlet, though not sure as Geronimo has used the same servlet API jar with Tomcat and Jetty for years.
> E.g. you cannot exchange javax.el-api.jar with the tomcat or juel versions, because they really must fit to their impl jars! They are all API compatible, but _not_ runtime compatible!
Wasn't aware about the EL jar. /me grumbles about the concept of an api vs implementation :)
Do you recall any details about EL? Will dig around, but if you have any pointers that'd be great.
> The CDI and atinject apis are fine in this regard, not 100% sure about javax.validation-api.
Picked through the geronimo-validation_1.0_spec source just to be sure. It looks good.
-David
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <je...@gmail.com>
>> To: dev@openejb.apache.org
>> Cc:
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2012 8:14 AM
>> Subject: Re: Inclusion of MyFace API in javaee-api jar
>>
>> No no, go ahead!
>>
>> Jean-Louis
>>
>> 2012/1/4 David Blevins <da...@gmail.com>
>>
>>> Didn't seem there were any objections to yanking MyFaces API from the
>>> javaee-api jar. Speak up if you have other thoughts.
>>>
>>> Will aim to release this tomorrow if possible. Happy to wait -- just say
>>> the word :)
>>>
>>>
>>> -David
>>>
>>> On Oct 28, 2011, at 1:47 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>>>
>>>> maybe we can wait Jon talk (tuesday) before doing it?
>>>>
>>>> - Romain
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2011/10/28 David Blevins <da...@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>>> We should probably yank the myfaces-api from the current
>> javaee-api jar
>>>>> snapshot.
>>>>>
>>>>> Seems this jar is really an implementation and if someone wanted
>> to use
>>> a
>>>>> different Faces implementation they would be unable to do so.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -David
>>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 28, 2011, at 12:53 PM, Matt Benson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 2:46 PM, David Blevins <
>>> david.blevins@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Quick question on the org.apache.myfaces.core:myfaces-api
>> jar.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is it tied to MyFaces in some way? Guessing the answer
>> is, yes, as it
>>>>> is labeled "myfaces-api" and not something more generic
>> like "faces-api"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If the answer is, no, then the follow up is how often does
>> its
>>> contents
>>>>> change?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If it is stable and only changed once in a while, we might
>> include it
>>> in
>>>>> the javaee-api jar we produce from OpenEJB/TomEE. We don't
>> include
>>> JavaMail
>>>>> for example as it really isn't an API but an actual
>> implementation.
>>> Seems
>>>>> like that is the case here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nail on the head and all that. :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Matt
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -David
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
Re: Inclusion of MyFace API in javaee-api jar
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de>.
actually most of the other javaee APIs share the same problem like myfaces. E.g. you cannot exchange javax.el-api.jar with the tomcat or juel versions, because they really must fit to their impl jars! They are all API compatible, but _not_ runtime compatible!
The CDI and atinject apis are fine in this regard, not 100% sure about javax.validation-api.
LieGrue,
strub
----- Original Message -----
> From: Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <je...@gmail.com>
> To: dev@openejb.apache.org
> Cc:
> Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2012 8:14 AM
> Subject: Re: Inclusion of MyFace API in javaee-api jar
>
> No no, go ahead!
>
> Jean-Louis
>
> 2012/1/4 David Blevins <da...@gmail.com>
>
>> Didn't seem there were any objections to yanking MyFaces API from the
>> javaee-api jar. Speak up if you have other thoughts.
>>
>> Will aim to release this tomorrow if possible. Happy to wait -- just say
>> the word :)
>>
>>
>> -David
>>
>> On Oct 28, 2011, at 1:47 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>>
>> > maybe we can wait Jon talk (tuesday) before doing it?
>> >
>> > - Romain
>> >
>> >
>> > 2011/10/28 David Blevins <da...@gmail.com>
>> >
>> >> We should probably yank the myfaces-api from the current
> javaee-api jar
>> >> snapshot.
>> >>
>> >> Seems this jar is really an implementation and if someone wanted
> to use
>> a
>> >> different Faces implementation they would be unable to do so.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> -David
>> >>
>> >> On Oct 28, 2011, at 12:53 PM, Matt Benson wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 2:46 PM, David Blevins <
>> david.blevins@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>> Quick question on the org.apache.myfaces.core:myfaces-api
> jar.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Is it tied to MyFaces in some way? Guessing the answer
> is, yes, as it
>> >> is labeled "myfaces-api" and not something more generic
> like "faces-api"
>> >>>>
>> >>>> If the answer is, no, then the follow up is how often does
> its
>> contents
>> >> change?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> If it is stable and only changed once in a while, we might
> include it
>> in
>> >> the javaee-api jar we produce from OpenEJB/TomEE. We don't
> include
>> JavaMail
>> >> for example as it really isn't an API but an actual
> implementation.
>> Seems
>> >> like that is the case here.
>> >>>
>> >>> Nail on the head and all that. :)
>> >>>
>> >>> Matt
>> >>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> -David
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>
>
Re: Inclusion of MyFace API in javaee-api jar
Posted by Romain Manni-Bucau <rm...@gmail.com>.
While build is still ok nop.
Le 4 janv. 2012 08:15, "Jean-Louis MONTEIRO" <je...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> No no, go ahead!
>
> Jean-Louis
>
> 2012/1/4 David Blevins <da...@gmail.com>
>
> > Didn't seem there were any objections to yanking MyFaces API from the
> > javaee-api jar. Speak up if you have other thoughts.
> >
> > Will aim to release this tomorrow if possible. Happy to wait -- just say
> > the word :)
> >
> >
> > -David
> >
> > On Oct 28, 2011, at 1:47 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> >
> > > maybe we can wait Jon talk (tuesday) before doing it?
> > >
> > > - Romain
> > >
> > >
> > > 2011/10/28 David Blevins <da...@gmail.com>
> > >
> > >> We should probably yank the myfaces-api from the current javaee-api
> jar
> > >> snapshot.
> > >>
> > >> Seems this jar is really an implementation and if someone wanted to
> use
> > a
> > >> different Faces implementation they would be unable to do so.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> -David
> > >>
> > >> On Oct 28, 2011, at 12:53 PM, Matt Benson wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 2:46 PM, David Blevins <
> > david.blevins@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>>> Quick question on the org.apache.myfaces.core:myfaces-api jar.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Is it tied to MyFaces in some way? Guessing the answer is, yes, as
> it
> > >> is labeled "myfaces-api" and not something more generic like
> "faces-api"
> > >>>>
> > >>>> If the answer is, no, then the follow up is how often does its
> > contents
> > >> change?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> If it is stable and only changed once in a while, we might include
> it
> > in
> > >> the javaee-api jar we produce from OpenEJB/TomEE. We don't include
> > JavaMail
> > >> for example as it really isn't an API but an actual implementation.
> > Seems
> > >> like that is the case here.
> > >>>
> > >>> Nail on the head and all that. :)
> > >>>
> > >>> Matt
> > >>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> -David
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> >
>
Re: Inclusion of MyFace API in javaee-api jar
Posted by Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <je...@gmail.com>.
No no, go ahead!
Jean-Louis
2012/1/4 David Blevins <da...@gmail.com>
> Didn't seem there were any objections to yanking MyFaces API from the
> javaee-api jar. Speak up if you have other thoughts.
>
> Will aim to release this tomorrow if possible. Happy to wait -- just say
> the word :)
>
>
> -David
>
> On Oct 28, 2011, at 1:47 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
>
> > maybe we can wait Jon talk (tuesday) before doing it?
> >
> > - Romain
> >
> >
> > 2011/10/28 David Blevins <da...@gmail.com>
> >
> >> We should probably yank the myfaces-api from the current javaee-api jar
> >> snapshot.
> >>
> >> Seems this jar is really an implementation and if someone wanted to use
> a
> >> different Faces implementation they would be unable to do so.
> >>
> >>
> >> -David
> >>
> >> On Oct 28, 2011, at 12:53 PM, Matt Benson wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 2:46 PM, David Blevins <
> david.blevins@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>> Quick question on the org.apache.myfaces.core:myfaces-api jar.
> >>>>
> >>>> Is it tied to MyFaces in some way? Guessing the answer is, yes, as it
> >> is labeled "myfaces-api" and not something more generic like "faces-api"
> >>>>
> >>>> If the answer is, no, then the follow up is how often does its
> contents
> >> change?
> >>>>
> >>>> If it is stable and only changed once in a while, we might include it
> in
> >> the javaee-api jar we produce from OpenEJB/TomEE. We don't include
> JavaMail
> >> for example as it really isn't an API but an actual implementation.
> Seems
> >> like that is the case here.
> >>>
> >>> Nail on the head and all that. :)
> >>>
> >>> Matt
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> -David
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >>
>
>