MYFACES-2564

[Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>]

Hey Michael,

I closed your MYFACES-2564 ticket, as we discussed this already.
There is another open ticket for the problem

-Matthias

-- 
Matthias Wessendorf

blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf

Re: MYFACES-2564

[Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>]

On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 6:05 PM, Jakob Korherr <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I just reopend the issue, because it has nothing to do with the facelets
> taglibs version problem as Michael said.

:-) I just saw "...If the answer to this question is "no", Facelets in
JSF 2...."
and closed it :-)

>
> However the changes are incorrect. Please see my comment in jira and please
> revert the changes.
>
> Regards,
> Jakob
>
> 2010/2/18 Michael Concini <mc...@gmail.com>
>>
>> I'm aware of the previous discussion, however my understanding was that it
>> related more to supporting the using the legacy facelets library and doesn't
>> appear to have anything to do with faces-config versioning.
>>
>> My fix in MYFACES-2564 just brings us into consistent behavior with how
>> verseion info in config files are supposed to be treated.  As I've been made
>> to understand it, they are only for use in schema validation and not for use
>> in determining which runtime behaviors are supported.
>>
>> -Mike
>>
>> On 2/18/2010 11:10 AM, Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
>>>
>>> Hey Michael,
>>>
>>> I closed your MYFACES-2564 ticket, as we discussed this already.
>>> There is another open ticket for the problem
>>>
>>> -Matthias
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>



-- 
Matthias Wessendorf

blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf

Re: MYFACES-2564

[Michael Concini <mc...@gmail.com>]

Jakob,

I"m not sure I understand what about the fix you think is incorrect.  I 
could use a little more specific explanation.

In particular, why would you have to or want to use facelets 1.1.x in 
this case?  The spec says nothing other than that facelets in JSF 2.0 is 
backwards compatible and that "such an application must *NOT *continue 
to bundle the facelets jar".  If you're talking about bundling the 
facelets jar, then you really are getting into the territory of 
MYFACES-2543.

The way I read section 10.1.2 is that we should only be disabling the 
facelets VDL is if javax.faces.DISABLE_FACELET_JSF_VIEWHANDLER is set to 
true.  Just because the faces-config version is 1.2, doesn't mean that 
facelets stops being integrated if you're on a 2.0 runtime.

Also, as mentioned in my previous comment, it is my understanding that 
the version number in a config file is only to be used for schema 
validation (e.g. determining which resources can be defined and such) 
and that it is not supposed to be used to determine the behavior of the 
runtime beyond that.  I'm going to get in touch with one of our members 
of the EE group to get his take on it to be sure though.

In the meantime, I'll temporarily back out the change until we can 
resolve this.

-Mike

On 2/18/2010 12:05 PM, Jakob Korherr wrote:
> I just reopend the issue, because it has nothing to do with the 
> facelets taglibs version problem as Michael said.
>
> However the changes are incorrect. Please see my comment in jira and 
> please revert the changes.
>
> Regards,
> Jakob
>
> 2010/2/18 Michael Concini <mconcini@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>
>
>     I'm aware of the previous discussion, however my understanding was
>     that it related more to supporting the using the legacy facelets
>     library and doesn't appear to have anything to do with
>     faces-config versioning.
>
>     My fix in MYFACES-2564 just brings us into consistent behavior
>     with how verseion info in config files are supposed to be treated.
>      As I've been made to understand it, they are only for use in
>     schema validation and not for use in determining which runtime
>     behaviors are supported.
>
>     -Mike
>
>
>     On 2/18/2010 11:10 AM, Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
>
>         Hey Michael,
>
>         I closed your MYFACES-2564 ticket, as we discussed this already.
>         There is another open ticket for the problem
>
>         -Matthias
>
>
>
>

Re: MYFACES-2564

[Jakob Korherr <ja...@gmail.com>]

I just reopend the issue, because it has nothing to do with the facelets
taglibs version problem as Michael said.

However the changes are incorrect. Please see my comment in jira and please
revert the changes.

Regards,
Jakob

2010/2/18 Michael Concini <mc...@gmail.com>

> I'm aware of the previous discussion, however my understanding was that it
> related more to supporting the using the legacy facelets library and doesn't
> appear to have anything to do with faces-config versioning.
>
> My fix in MYFACES-2564 just brings us into consistent behavior with how
> verseion info in config files are supposed to be treated.  As I've been made
> to understand it, they are only for use in schema validation and not for use
> in determining which runtime behaviors are supported.
>
> -Mike
>
>
> On 2/18/2010 11:10 AM, Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
>
>> Hey Michael,
>>
>> I closed your MYFACES-2564 ticket, as we discussed this already.
>> There is another open ticket for the problem
>>
>> -Matthias
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: MYFACES-2564

[Michael Concini <mc...@gmail.com>]

I'm aware of the previous discussion, however my understanding was that 
it related more to supporting the using the legacy facelets library and 
doesn't appear to have anything to do with faces-config versioning.

My fix in MYFACES-2564 just brings us into consistent behavior with how 
verseion info in config files are supposed to be treated.  As I've been 
made to understand it, they are only for use in schema validation and 
not for use in determining which runtime behaviors are supported.

-Mike

On 2/18/2010 11:10 AM, Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
> Hey Michael,
>
> I closed your MYFACES-2564 ticket, as we discussed this already.
> There is another open ticket for the problem
>
> -Matthias
>
>