You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@myfaces.apache.org by Andrew Robinson <an...@gmail.com> on 2009/12/16 23:26:37 UTC
[Trinidad 2] Convert examples to facelets?
Currently the trinidad examples (trinidad-demo and trinidad-blank)
use JSP and JSPX. Just turning facelets on for JSPX files isn't going
to work as it causes faces messages due to <jsp:root> and
<jsp.derective> tags. Furthermore, many pages use jsp include tags. To
show proper support of JSF 2, we should not be supporting JSP in
Trinidad's demo IMO (also some features of JSF 2 require facelets to
be used AFAIK).
I recommend:
1) Migrating all *.jspx to *.xml (I'd prefer to not use *.xhtml as
discussed many times in the facelets user's list and on the 314 EG ML)
2) Replace include jsp tags with ui:include
3) Replace jsp:root with ui:composition
Opinions?
-Andrew
Re: [Trinidad 2] Convert examples to facelets?
Posted by Martin Koci <ma...@aura.cz>.
Hi,
I think .xml is too generic - there are many .xml files but only one
sort of them are facelets views. I recommend use of .view.xml
(login.view.xml for example) - that suffix was discussed on 314 mailing
list. With reserved .jsp (or .jspx) was view declaration clearly
identified, with simple .xml is not possible (for users and for IDEs). I
use view.xml for months even with trinidad without any problems.
Regards,
Martin Kočí
Andrew Robinson píše v Pá 18. 12. 2009 v 09:23 -0700:
> Also, please mention if there are any objections to using *.xml for
> the facelets as opposed to *.xhtml which became the facelets standard.
> BTW, this has been brought up to the EG and has been mentioned in the
> facelets mailing list that *.xml should be the default as there is no
> requirement that JSF pages/facelets need to produce XHTML or HTML (for
> example seam already has support for email and PDF output)
>
> -Andrew
>
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 3:26 PM, Andrew Robinson
> <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Currently the trinidad examples (trinidad-demo and trinidad-blank)
> > use JSP and JSPX. Just turning facelets on for JSPX files isn't going
> > to work as it causes faces messages due to <jsp:root> and
> > <jsp.derective> tags. Furthermore, many pages use jsp include tags. To
> > show proper support of JSF 2, we should not be supporting JSP in
> > Trinidad's demo IMO (also some features of JSF 2 require facelets to
> > be used AFAIK).
> >
> > I recommend:
> >
> > 1) Migrating all *.jspx to *.xml (I'd prefer to not use *.xhtml as
> > discussed many times in the facelets user's list and on the 314 EG ML)
> > 2) Replace include jsp tags with ui:include
> > 3) Replace jsp:root with ui:composition
> >
> > Opinions?
> >
> > -Andrew
> >
>
Re: [Trinidad 2] Convert examples to facelets?
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>.
whoops,
+1 on *.xml
-M
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 5:23 PM, Andrew Robinson
<an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Also, please mention if there are any objections to using *.xml for
> the facelets as opposed to *.xhtml which became the facelets standard.
> BTW, this has been brought up to the EG and has been mentioned in the
> facelets mailing list that *.xml should be the default as there is no
> requirement that JSF pages/facelets need to produce XHTML or HTML (for
> example seam already has support for email and PDF output)
>
> -Andrew
>
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 3:26 PM, Andrew Robinson
> <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Currently the trinidad examples (trinidad-demo and trinidad-blank)
>> use JSP and JSPX. Just turning facelets on for JSPX files isn't going
>> to work as it causes faces messages due to <jsp:root> and
>> <jsp.derective> tags. Furthermore, many pages use jsp include tags. To
>> show proper support of JSF 2, we should not be supporting JSP in
>> Trinidad's demo IMO (also some features of JSF 2 require facelets to
>> be used AFAIK).
>>
>> I recommend:
>>
>> 1) Migrating all *.jspx to *.xml (I'd prefer to not use *.xhtml as
>> discussed many times in the facelets user's list and on the 314 EG ML)
>> 2) Replace include jsp tags with ui:include
>> 3) Replace jsp:root with ui:composition
>>
>> Opinions?
>>
>> -Andrew
>>
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
Re: [Trinidad 2] Convert examples to facelets?
Posted by Andrew Robinson <an...@gmail.com>.
Also, please mention if there are any objections to using *.xml for
the facelets as opposed to *.xhtml which became the facelets standard.
BTW, this has been brought up to the EG and has been mentioned in the
facelets mailing list that *.xml should be the default as there is no
requirement that JSF pages/facelets need to produce XHTML or HTML (for
example seam already has support for email and PDF output)
-Andrew
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 3:26 PM, Andrew Robinson
<an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Currently the trinidad examples (trinidad-demo and trinidad-blank)
> use JSP and JSPX. Just turning facelets on for JSPX files isn't going
> to work as it causes faces messages due to <jsp:root> and
> <jsp.derective> tags. Furthermore, many pages use jsp include tags. To
> show proper support of JSF 2, we should not be supporting JSP in
> Trinidad's demo IMO (also some features of JSF 2 require facelets to
> be used AFAIK).
>
> I recommend:
>
> 1) Migrating all *.jspx to *.xml (I'd prefer to not use *.xhtml as
> discussed many times in the facelets user's list and on the 314 EG ML)
> 2) Replace include jsp tags with ui:include
> 3) Replace jsp:root with ui:composition
>
> Opinions?
>
> -Andrew
>
Re: [Trinidad 2] Convert examples to facelets?
Posted by Jan-Kees van Andel <ja...@gmail.com>.
Absolutely +1
It might also make a migration to JSF 2.0 easier.
/JK
2009/12/17 Max Starets <ma...@oracle.com>:
> +1 from me too.
>
> Max
>
> Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
>
> Hello Andrew,
>
> I like your proposal.
>
> +1 on doing so!
>
> -Matthias
>
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 11:26 PM, Andrew Robinson
> <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Currently the trinidad examples (trinidad-demo and trinidad-blank)
> use JSP and JSPX. Just turning facelets on for JSPX files isn't going
> to work as it causes faces messages due to <jsp:root> and
> <jsp.derective> tags. Furthermore, many pages use jsp include tags. To
> show proper support of JSF 2, we should not be supporting JSP in
> Trinidad's demo IMO (also some features of JSF 2 require facelets to
> be used AFAIK).
>
> I recommend:
>
> 1) Migrating all *.jspx to *.xml (I'd prefer to not use *.xhtml as
> discussed many times in the facelets user's list and on the 314 EG ML)
> 2) Replace include jsp tags with ui:include
> 3) Replace jsp:root with ui:composition
>
> Opinions?
>
> -Andrew
>
>
>
>
>
Re: [Trinidad 2] Convert examples to facelets?
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>.
Hello Andrew,
I like your proposal.
+1 on doing so!
-Matthias
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 11:26 PM, Andrew Robinson
<an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Currently the trinidad examples (trinidad-demo and trinidad-blank)
> use JSP and JSPX. Just turning facelets on for JSPX files isn't going
> to work as it causes faces messages due to <jsp:root> and
> <jsp.derective> tags. Furthermore, many pages use jsp include tags. To
> show proper support of JSF 2, we should not be supporting JSP in
> Trinidad's demo IMO (also some features of JSF 2 require facelets to
> be used AFAIK).
>
> I recommend:
>
> 1) Migrating all *.jspx to *.xml (I'd prefer to not use *.xhtml as
> discussed many times in the facelets user's list and on the 314 EG ML)
> 2) Replace include jsp tags with ui:include
> 3) Replace jsp:root with ui:composition
>
> Opinions?
>
> -Andrew
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf