You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@myfaces.apache.org by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org> on 2010/02/09 18:02:19 UTC
[core] Backwards compatibility (e.g. MYFACES-2543)
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 (and there is some parameter to disable Facelets2)
-Matthias
--
Matthias Wessendorf
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
Re: [core] Backwards compatibility (e.g. MYFACES-2543)
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 7:23 PM, Jakob Korherr <ja...@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
>
> 2010/2/9 Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@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 ?
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 7:04 PM, Leonardo Uribe <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > 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 read). I think myfaces
>> > is
>> > doing right and really ri is mixing the two config files by some unknown
>> > reason.
>> >
>> > regards,
>> >
>> > Leonardo Uribe
>> >
>> > 2010/2/9 Jakob Korherr <ja...@gmail.com>
>> >>
>> >> 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.
>> >>
>> >> This is also specified in the spec (although completely hidden in the
>> >> appendix): take a look at the xsd type definition of
>> >> facelet-taglib-versionType. It says "This type contains the recognized
>> >> versions of facelet-taglib supported." and "2.0" is the only allowed
>> >> value
>> >> for this attribute.
>> >>
>> >> Regards,
>> >> Jakob
>> >>
>> >> 2010/2/9 Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>
>> >>>
>> >>> 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 (and there is some parameter to disable Facelets2)
>> >>>
>> >>> -Matthias
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> Matthias Wessendorf
>> >>>
>> >>> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
>> >>> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
>> >>> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Matthias Wessendorf
>>
>> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
>> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
>> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
Re: [core] Backwards compatibility (e.g. MYFACES-2543)
Posted by Jakob Korherr <ja...@gmail.com>.
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 <ma...@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 ?
>
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 7:04 PM, Leonardo Uribe <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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 read). I think myfaces is
> > doing right and really ri is mixing the two config files by some unknown
> > reason.
> >
> > regards,
> >
> > Leonardo Uribe
> >
> > 2010/2/9 Jakob Korherr <ja...@gmail.com>
> >>
> >> 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.
> >>
> >> This is also specified in the spec (although completely hidden in the
> >> appendix): take a look at the xsd type definition of
> >> facelet-taglib-versionType. It says "This type contains the recognized
> >> versions of facelet-taglib supported." and "2.0" is the only allowed
> value
> >> for this attribute.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Jakob
> >>
> >> 2010/2/9 Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>
> >>>
> >>> 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 (and there is some parameter to disable Facelets2)
> >>>
> >>> -Matthias
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Matthias Wessendorf
> >>>
> >>> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> >>> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> >>> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Matthias Wessendorf
>
> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>
Re: [core] Backwards compatibility (e.g. MYFACES-2543)
Posted by Jakob Korherr <ja...@gmail.com>.
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 <ma...@apache.org>
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 7:31 PM, Mike Kienenberger <mk...@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"
> :)
> So, end of the story is, almost everybody will blame this to use ;-)
> "Oh, crappy MyFaces doesn't work" etc :) All the FUD! :)
>
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 1:27 PM, Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> Can it be made into a configuration option?
> >>
> >> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@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 "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 Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>>> 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 <lu...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>> 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 read). I think
> myfaces is
> >>>>> doing right and really ri is mixing the two config files by some
> unknown
> >>>>> reason.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> regards,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Leonardo Uribe
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 2010/2/9 Jakob Korherr <ja...@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This is also specified in the spec (although completely hidden in
> the
> >>>>>> appendix): take a look at the xsd type definition of
> >>>>>> facelet-taglib-versionType. It says "This type contains the
> recognized
> >>>>>> versions of facelet-taglib supported." and "2.0" is the only allowed
> value
> >>>>>> for this attribute.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>> Jakob
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 2010/2/9 Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 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 (and there is some parameter to disable Facelets2)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> -Matthias
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>> Matthias Wessendorf
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> >>>>>>> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> >>>>>>> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Matthias Wessendorf
> >>>>
> >>>> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> >>>> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> >>>> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Matthias Wessendorf
> >>>
> >>> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> >>> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> >>> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Matthias Wessendorf
>
> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>
Re: [core] Backwards compatibility (e.g. MYFACES-2543)
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>.
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 <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> 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 <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> have you installed the com.sun.facelets.FaceletViewHandler in faces-config?
>> and which error did you get?
>>
>>
>> 2010/2/11 Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@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 "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 <ja...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > No I have not filed any bugs. Feel free to file them ;)
>>> >
>>> > Regards,
>>> > Jakob
>>> >
>>> > 2010/2/10 Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>
>>> >>
>>> >> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 10:44 AM, Ganesh <ga...@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 Facelets and
>>> >> > Facelets in
>>> >> > JSF 2.0. The sole determinant to backwards compatibility lies in the
>>> >> > answer
>>> >> > to the question, “is there any Java code in the application, or in
>>> >> > libraries
>>> >> > used by the application, that extends from or depends on any class in
>>> >> > package com.sun.facelets and/or its sub-packages?”
>>> >> > ■ If the answer to this question is “yes”, Facelets in JSF 2.0 is not
>>> >> > backwards compatibile with Facelets and such an application must
>>> >> > continue to
>>> >> > bundle the Facelets jar file along with the application, continue to
>>> >> > set
>>> >> > the
>>> >> > Facelets configuration parameters, and also set the
>>> >> > javax.faces.DISABLE_FACELET_JSF_VIEWHANDLER
>>> >> > <context-param> to true. Please see Section 11.1.3 “Application
>>> >> > Configuration Parameters” for details on this
>>> >> > option. Any code that extends or depends on any class in package
>>> >> > com.sun.facelets and/or its sub-packages
>>> >> > must be modified to depend on the appropriate classes in package
>>> >> > javax.faces.webapp.vdl and/or its subpackages.
>>> >>
>>> >> yes (see previous email(s))
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> > ■ If the answer to this question is “no”, Facelets in JSF 2.0 is
>>> >> > backwards
>>> >> > compatible with pre-JSF 2.0 Facelets and such an application must not
>>> >> > continue to bundle the Facelets jar file along with the application,
>>> >> > and
>>> >> > must not continue to set the Facelets configuration parameters.
>>> >> > Thankfully, most applications that use Facelets fall into the latter
>>> >> > category, or, if they fall in the former, their dependence will
>>> >> > easily
>>> >> > be
>>> >> > migrated to the new public classes.
>>> >>
>>> >> ok. please; file a bug on that appendix thing.
>>> >>
>>> >> thjx
>>> >> -m
>>> >>
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Best regards,
>>> >> > Ganesh
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Matthias Wessendorf schrieb:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 6:26 AM, Ganesh <ga...@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 switch to Mojarra
>>> >> >>> to
>>> >> >>> get
>>> >> >>> their application to run.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> I know; that's what I meant with my comment before
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>> The argument of a xsd:restriction in the spec will
>>> >> >>> help little. Just
>>> >> >>> taking old Facelets is *not* a solution, because the
>>> >> >>> rest of the application may want to use the new features.
>>> >> >>> Please try filing this as a bug to Mojarra as Matthias
>>> >> >>> proposed - if they fix it, MyFaces may insist on version=2.0, but
>>> >> >>> if
>>> >> >>> they
>>> >> >>> don't I think we shouldn't
>>> >> >>> either.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> I agree
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>> I've carried the question whether a JSF 2.0 compatible
>>> >> >>> implementation
>>> >> >>> is
>>> >> >>> required to refuse old version facelets taglibs into the EG - let's
>>> >> >>> see,
>>> >> >>> what they have to say
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> technically, I think now we are correct.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> @Jakob: Did you create such a bug against the RI ?
>>> >> >> (that they allow "old" Facelets) maybe another on
>>> >> >> not being (too) clear in the spec about it...
>>> >> >> -Matthias
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>> on this ...
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> Best regards,
>>> >> >>> Ganesh
>>> >> >>>>
>>> >> >>>> I see both ways; I think I don't like the fact that the RI has
>>> >> >>>> this
>>> >> >>>> "bug"
>>> >> >>>> :)
>>> >> >>>> So, end of the story is, almost everybody will blame this to us
>>> >> >>>> ;-)
>>> >> >>>> "Oh, crappy MyFaces doesn't work" etc :) All the FUD! :)
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> --
>>> >> Matthias Wessendorf
>>> >>
>>> >> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
>>> >> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
>>> >> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Matthias Wessendorf
>>>
>>> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
>>> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
>>> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Matthias Wessendorf
>
> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
Re: [core] Backwards compatibility (e.g. MYFACES-2543)
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>.
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 <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> have you installed the com.sun.facelets.FaceletViewHandler in faces-config?
> and which error did you get?
>
>
> 2010/2/11 Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@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 "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 <ja...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > No I have not filed any bugs. Feel free to file them ;)
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Jakob
>> >
>> > 2010/2/10 Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 10:44 AM, Ganesh <ga...@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 Facelets and
>> >> > Facelets in
>> >> > JSF 2.0. The sole determinant to backwards compatibility lies in the
>> >> > answer
>> >> > to the question, “is there any Java code in the application, or in
>> >> > libraries
>> >> > used by the application, that extends from or depends on any class in
>> >> > package com.sun.facelets and/or its sub-packages?”
>> >> > ■ If the answer to this question is “yes”, Facelets in JSF 2.0 is not
>> >> > backwards compatibile with Facelets and such an application must
>> >> > continue to
>> >> > bundle the Facelets jar file along with the application, continue to
>> >> > set
>> >> > the
>> >> > Facelets configuration parameters, and also set the
>> >> > javax.faces.DISABLE_FACELET_JSF_VIEWHANDLER
>> >> > <context-param> to true. Please see Section 11.1.3 “Application
>> >> > Configuration Parameters” for details on this
>> >> > option. Any code that extends or depends on any class in package
>> >> > com.sun.facelets and/or its sub-packages
>> >> > must be modified to depend on the appropriate classes in package
>> >> > javax.faces.webapp.vdl and/or its subpackages.
>> >>
>> >> yes (see previous email(s))
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > ■ If the answer to this question is “no”, Facelets in JSF 2.0 is
>> >> > backwards
>> >> > compatible with pre-JSF 2.0 Facelets and such an application must not
>> >> > continue to bundle the Facelets jar file along with the application,
>> >> > and
>> >> > must not continue to set the Facelets configuration parameters.
>> >> > Thankfully, most applications that use Facelets fall into the latter
>> >> > category, or, if they fall in the former, their dependence will
>> >> > easily
>> >> > be
>> >> > migrated to the new public classes.
>> >>
>> >> ok. please; file a bug on that appendix thing.
>> >>
>> >> thjx
>> >> -m
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Best regards,
>> >> > Ganesh
>> >> >
>> >> > Matthias Wessendorf schrieb:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 6:26 AM, Ganesh <ga...@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 switch to Mojarra
>> >> >>> to
>> >> >>> get
>> >> >>> their application to run.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I know; that's what I meant with my comment before
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> The argument of a xsd:restriction in the spec will
>> >> >>> help little. Just
>> >> >>> taking old Facelets is *not* a solution, because the
>> >> >>> rest of the application may want to use the new features.
>> >> >>> Please try filing this as a bug to Mojarra as Matthias
>> >> >>> proposed - if they fix it, MyFaces may insist on version=2.0, but
>> >> >>> if
>> >> >>> they
>> >> >>> don't I think we shouldn't
>> >> >>> either.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I agree
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> I've carried the question whether a JSF 2.0 compatible
>> >> >>> implementation
>> >> >>> is
>> >> >>> required to refuse old version facelets taglibs into the EG - let's
>> >> >>> see,
>> >> >>> what they have to say
>> >> >>
>> >> >> technically, I think now we are correct.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> @Jakob: Did you create such a bug against the RI ?
>> >> >> (that they allow "old" Facelets) maybe another on
>> >> >> not being (too) clear in the spec about it...
>> >> >> -Matthias
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> on this ...
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Best regards,
>> >> >>> Ganesh
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> I see both ways; I think I don't like the fact that the RI has
>> >> >>>> this
>> >> >>>> "bug"
>> >> >>>> :)
>> >> >>>> So, end of the story is, almost everybody will blame this to us
>> >> >>>> ;-)
>> >> >>>> "Oh, crappy MyFaces doesn't work" etc :) All the FUD! :)
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Matthias Wessendorf
>> >>
>> >> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
>> >> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
>> >> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Matthias Wessendorf
>>
>> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
>> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
>> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
Re: [core] Backwards compatibility (e.g. MYFACES-2543)
Posted by Jakob Korherr <ja...@gmail.com>.
have you installed the com.sun.facelets.FaceletViewHandler in faces-config?
and which error did you get?
2010/2/11 Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@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 "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 <ja...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > No I have not filed any bugs. Feel free to file them ;)
> >
> > Regards,
> > Jakob
> >
> > 2010/2/10 Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 10:44 AM, Ganesh <ga...@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 Facelets and
> >> > Facelets in
> >> > JSF 2.0. The sole determinant to backwards compatibility lies in the
> >> > answer
> >> > to the question, “is there any Java code in the application, or in
> >> > libraries
> >> > used by the application, that extends from or depends on any class in
> >> > package com.sun.facelets and/or its sub-packages?”
> >> > ■ If the answer to this question is “yes”, Facelets in JSF 2.0 is not
> >> > backwards compatibile with Facelets and such an application must
> >> > continue to
> >> > bundle the Facelets jar file along with the application, continue to
> set
> >> > the
> >> > Facelets configuration parameters, and also set the
> >> > javax.faces.DISABLE_FACELET_JSF_VIEWHANDLER
> >> > <context-param> to true. Please see Section 11.1.3 “Application
> >> > Configuration Parameters” for details on this
> >> > option. Any code that extends or depends on any class in package
> >> > com.sun.facelets and/or its sub-packages
> >> > must be modified to depend on the appropriate classes in package
> >> > javax.faces.webapp.vdl and/or its subpackages.
> >>
> >> yes (see previous email(s))
> >>
> >>
> >> > ■ If the answer to this question is “no”, Facelets in JSF 2.0 is
> >> > backwards
> >> > compatible with pre-JSF 2.0 Facelets and such an application must not
> >> > continue to bundle the Facelets jar file along with the application,
> and
> >> > must not continue to set the Facelets configuration parameters.
> >> > Thankfully, most applications that use Facelets fall into the latter
> >> > category, or, if they fall in the former, their dependence will easily
> >> > be
> >> > migrated to the new public classes.
> >>
> >> ok. please; file a bug on that appendix thing.
> >>
> >> thjx
> >> -m
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Best regards,
> >> > Ganesh
> >> >
> >> > Matthias Wessendorf schrieb:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 6:26 AM, Ganesh <ga...@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 switch to Mojarra
> to
> >> >>> get
> >> >>> their application to run.
> >> >>
> >> >> I know; that's what I meant with my comment before
> >> >>
> >> >>> The argument of a xsd:restriction in the spec will
> >> >>> help little. Just
> >> >>> taking old Facelets is *not* a solution, because the
> >> >>> rest of the application may want to use the new features.
> >> >>> Please try filing this as a bug to Mojarra as Matthias
> >> >>> proposed - if they fix it, MyFaces may insist on version=2.0, but if
> >> >>> they
> >> >>> don't I think we shouldn't
> >> >>> either.
> >> >>
> >> >> I agree
> >> >>
> >> >>> I've carried the question whether a JSF 2.0 compatible
> implementation
> >> >>> is
> >> >>> required to refuse old version facelets taglibs into the EG - let's
> >> >>> see,
> >> >>> what they have to say
> >> >>
> >> >> technically, I think now we are correct.
> >> >>
> >> >> @Jakob: Did you create such a bug against the RI ?
> >> >> (that they allow "old" Facelets) maybe another on
> >> >> not being (too) clear in the spec about it...
> >> >> -Matthias
> >> >>
> >> >>> on this ...
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Best regards,
> >> >>> Ganesh
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> I see both ways; I think I don't like the fact that the RI has this
> >> >>>> "bug"
> >> >>>> :)
> >> >>>> So, end of the story is, almost everybody will blame this to us ;-)
> >> >>>> "Oh, crappy MyFaces doesn't work" etc :) All the FUD! :)
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Matthias Wessendorf
> >>
> >> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> >> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> >> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Matthias Wessendorf
>
> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>
Re: [core] Backwards compatibility (e.g. MYFACES-2543)
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@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 "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 <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> No I have not filed any bugs. Feel free to file them ;)
>
> Regards,
> Jakob
>
> 2010/2/10 Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 10:44 AM, Ganesh <ga...@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 Facelets and
>> > Facelets in
>> > JSF 2.0. The sole determinant to backwards compatibility lies in the
>> > answer
>> > to the question, “is there any Java code in the application, or in
>> > libraries
>> > used by the application, that extends from or depends on any class in
>> > package com.sun.facelets and/or its sub-packages?”
>> > ■ If the answer to this question is “yes”, Facelets in JSF 2.0 is not
>> > backwards compatibile with Facelets and such an application must
>> > continue to
>> > bundle the Facelets jar file along with the application, continue to set
>> > the
>> > Facelets configuration parameters, and also set the
>> > javax.faces.DISABLE_FACELET_JSF_VIEWHANDLER
>> > <context-param> to true. Please see Section 11.1.3 “Application
>> > Configuration Parameters” for details on this
>> > option. Any code that extends or depends on any class in package
>> > com.sun.facelets and/or its sub-packages
>> > must be modified to depend on the appropriate classes in package
>> > javax.faces.webapp.vdl and/or its subpackages.
>>
>> yes (see previous email(s))
>>
>>
>> > ■ If the answer to this question is “no”, Facelets in JSF 2.0 is
>> > backwards
>> > compatible with pre-JSF 2.0 Facelets and such an application must not
>> > continue to bundle the Facelets jar file along with the application, and
>> > must not continue to set the Facelets configuration parameters.
>> > Thankfully, most applications that use Facelets fall into the latter
>> > category, or, if they fall in the former, their dependence will easily
>> > be
>> > migrated to the new public classes.
>>
>> ok. please; file a bug on that appendix thing.
>>
>> thjx
>> -m
>>
>> >
>> > Best regards,
>> > Ganesh
>> >
>> > Matthias Wessendorf schrieb:
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 6:26 AM, Ganesh <ga...@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 switch to Mojarra to
>> >>> get
>> >>> their application to run.
>> >>
>> >> I know; that's what I meant with my comment before
>> >>
>> >>> The argument of a xsd:restriction in the spec will
>> >>> help little. Just
>> >>> taking old Facelets is *not* a solution, because the
>> >>> rest of the application may want to use the new features.
>> >>> Please try filing this as a bug to Mojarra as Matthias
>> >>> proposed - if they fix it, MyFaces may insist on version=2.0, but if
>> >>> they
>> >>> don't I think we shouldn't
>> >>> either.
>> >>
>> >> I agree
>> >>
>> >>> I've carried the question whether a JSF 2.0 compatible implementation
>> >>> is
>> >>> required to refuse old version facelets taglibs into the EG - let's
>> >>> see,
>> >>> what they have to say
>> >>
>> >> technically, I think now we are correct.
>> >>
>> >> @Jakob: Did you create such a bug against the RI ?
>> >> (that they allow "old" Facelets) maybe another on
>> >> not being (too) clear in the spec about it...
>> >> -Matthias
>> >>
>> >>> on this ...
>> >>>
>> >>> Best regards,
>> >>> Ganesh
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I see both ways; I think I don't like the fact that the RI has this
>> >>>> "bug"
>> >>>> :)
>> >>>> So, end of the story is, almost everybody will blame this to us ;-)
>> >>>> "Oh, crappy MyFaces doesn't work" etc :) All the FUD! :)
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Matthias Wessendorf
>>
>> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
>> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
>> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
Re: [core] Backwards compatibility (e.g. MYFACES-2543)
Posted by Jakob Korherr <ja...@gmail.com>.
No I have not filed any bugs. Feel free to file them ;)
Regards,
Jakob
2010/2/10 Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 10:44 AM, Ganesh <ga...@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 Facelets and Facelets
> in
> > JSF 2.0. The sole determinant to backwards compatibility lies in the
> answer
> > to the question, “is there any Java code in the application, or in
> libraries
> > used by the application, that extends from or depends on any class in
> > package com.sun.facelets and/or its sub-packages?”
> > ■ If the answer to this question is “yes”, Facelets in JSF 2.0 is not
> > backwards compatibile with Facelets and such an application must continue
> to
> > bundle the Facelets jar file along with the application, continue to set
> the
> > Facelets configuration parameters, and also set the
> > javax.faces.DISABLE_FACELET_JSF_VIEWHANDLER
> > <context-param> to true. Please see Section 11.1.3 “Application
> > Configuration Parameters” for details on this
> > option. Any code that extends or depends on any class in package
> > com.sun.facelets and/or its sub-packages
> > must be modified to depend on the appropriate classes in package
> > javax.faces.webapp.vdl and/or its subpackages.
>
> yes (see previous email(s))
>
>
> > ■ If the answer to this question is “no”, Facelets in JSF 2.0 is
> backwards
> > compatible with pre-JSF 2.0 Facelets and such an application must not
> > continue to bundle the Facelets jar file along with the application, and
> > must not continue to set the Facelets configuration parameters.
> > Thankfully, most applications that use Facelets fall into the latter
> > category, or, if they fall in the former, their dependence will easily be
> > migrated to the new public classes.
>
> ok. please; file a bug on that appendix thing.
>
> thjx
> -m
>
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Ganesh
> >
> > Matthias Wessendorf schrieb:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 6:26 AM, Ganesh <ga...@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 switch to Mojarra to
> get
> >>> their application to run.
> >>
> >> I know; that's what I meant with my comment before
> >>
> >>> The argument of a xsd:restriction in the spec will
> >>> help little. Just
> >>> taking old Facelets is *not* a solution, because the
> >>> rest of the application may want to use the new features.
> >>> Please try filing this as a bug to Mojarra as Matthias
> >>> proposed - if they fix it, MyFaces may insist on version=2.0, but if
> they
> >>> don't I think we shouldn't
> >>> either.
> >>
> >> I agree
> >>
> >>> I've carried the question whether a JSF 2.0 compatible implementation
> is
> >>> required to refuse old version facelets taglibs into the EG - let's
> see,
> >>> what they have to say
> >>
> >> technically, I think now we are correct.
> >>
> >> @Jakob: Did you create such a bug against the RI ?
> >> (that they allow "old" Facelets) maybe another on
> >> not being (too) clear in the spec about it...
> >> -Matthias
> >>
> >>> on this ...
> >>>
> >>> Best regards,
> >>> Ganesh
> >>>>
> >>>> I see both ways; I think I don't like the fact that the RI has this
> >>>> "bug"
> >>>> :)
> >>>> So, end of the story is, almost everybody will blame this to us ;-)
> >>>> "Oh, crappy MyFaces doesn't work" etc :) All the FUD! :)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Matthias Wessendorf
>
> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>
Re: [core] Backwards compatibility (e.g. MYFACES-2543)
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 10:44 AM, Ganesh <ga...@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 Facelets and Facelets in
> JSF 2.0. The sole determinant to backwards compatibility lies in the answer
> to the question, “is there any Java code in the application, or in libraries
> used by the application, that extends from or depends on any class in
> package com.sun.facelets and/or its sub-packages?”
> ■ If the answer to this question is “yes”, Facelets in JSF 2.0 is not
> backwards compatibile with Facelets and such an application must continue to
> bundle the Facelets jar file along with the application, continue to set the
> Facelets configuration parameters, and also set the
> javax.faces.DISABLE_FACELET_JSF_VIEWHANDLER
> <context-param> to true. Please see Section 11.1.3 “Application
> Configuration Parameters” for details on this
> option. Any code that extends or depends on any class in package
> com.sun.facelets and/or its sub-packages
> must be modified to depend on the appropriate classes in package
> javax.faces.webapp.vdl and/or its subpackages.
yes (see previous email(s))
> ■ If the answer to this question is “no”, Facelets in JSF 2.0 is backwards
> compatible with pre-JSF 2.0 Facelets and such an application must not
> continue to bundle the Facelets jar file along with the application, and
> must not continue to set the Facelets configuration parameters.
> Thankfully, most applications that use Facelets fall into the latter
> category, or, if they fall in the former, their dependence will easily be
> migrated to the new public classes.
ok. please; file a bug on that appendix thing.
thjx
-m
>
> Best regards,
> Ganesh
>
> Matthias Wessendorf schrieb:
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 6:26 AM, Ganesh <ga...@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 switch to Mojarra to get
>>> their application to run.
>>
>> I know; that's what I meant with my comment before
>>
>>> The argument of a xsd:restriction in the spec will
>>> help little. Just
>>> taking old Facelets is *not* a solution, because the
>>> rest of the application may want to use the new features.
>>> Please try filing this as a bug to Mojarra as Matthias
>>> proposed - if they fix it, MyFaces may insist on version=2.0, but if they
>>> don't I think we shouldn't
>>> either.
>>
>> I agree
>>
>>> I've carried the question whether a JSF 2.0 compatible implementation is
>>> required to refuse old version facelets taglibs into the EG - let's see,
>>> what they have to say
>>
>> technically, I think now we are correct.
>>
>> @Jakob: Did you create such a bug against the RI ?
>> (that they allow "old" Facelets) maybe another on
>> not being (too) clear in the spec about it...
>> -Matthias
>>
>>> on this ...
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Ganesh
>>>>
>>>> I see both ways; I think I don't like the fact that the RI has this
>>>> "bug"
>>>> :)
>>>> So, end of the story is, almost everybody will blame this to us ;-)
>>>> "Oh, crappy MyFaces doesn't work" etc :) All the FUD! :)
>>
>>
>>
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
Re: [core] Backwards compatibility (e.g. MYFACES-2543)
Posted by Ganesh <ga...@j4fry.org>.
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 compatibility lies in the answer to the question, “is there any Java code in the application, or in libraries used by the application, that extends from or depends on any class in package com.sun.facelets and/or its sub-packages?”
■ If the answer to this question is “yes”, Facelets in JSF 2.0 is not backwards compatibile with Facelets and such an application must continue to bundle the Facelets jar file along with the application, continue to set the Facelets configuration parameters, and also set the javax.faces.DISABLE_FACELET_JSF_VIEWHANDLER
<context-param> to true. Please see Section 11.1.3 “Application Configuration Parameters” for details on this
option. Any code that extends or depends on any class in package com.sun.facelets and/or its sub-packages
must be modified to depend on the appropriate classes in package javax.faces.webapp.vdl and/or its subpackages.
■ If the answer to this question is “no”, Facelets in JSF 2.0 is backwards compatible with pre-JSF 2.0 Facelets and such an application must not continue to bundle the Facelets jar file along with the application, and must not continue to set the Facelets configuration parameters.
Thankfully, most applications that use Facelets fall into the latter category, or, if they fall in the former, their dependence will easily be migrated to the new public classes.
Best regards,
Ganesh
Matthias Wessendorf schrieb:
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 6:26 AM, Ganesh <ga...@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 switch to Mojarra to get
>> their application to run.
>
> I know; that's what I meant with my comment before
>
>> The argument of a xsd:restriction in the spec will
>> help little. Just
>> taking old Facelets is *not* a solution, because the
>> rest of the application may want to use the new features.
>> Please try filing this as a bug to Mojarra as Matthias
>> proposed - if they fix it, MyFaces may insist on version=2.0, but if they
>> don't I think we shouldn't
>> either.
>
> I agree
>
>> I've carried the question whether a JSF 2.0 compatible implementation is
>> required to refuse old version facelets taglibs into the EG - let's see,
>> what they have to say
>
> technically, I think now we are correct.
>
> @Jakob: Did you create such a bug against the RI ?
> (that they allow "old" Facelets) maybe another on
> not being (too) clear in the spec about it...
> -Matthias
>
>> on this ...
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Ganesh
>>> I see both ways; I think I don't like the fact that the RI has this "bug"
>>> :)
>>> So, end of the story is, almost everybody will blame this to us ;-)
>>> "Oh, crappy MyFaces doesn't work" etc :) All the FUD! :)
>
>
>
Re: [core] Backwards compatibility (e.g. MYFACES-2543)
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 6:26 AM, Ganesh <ga...@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 switch to Mojarra to get
> their application to run.
I know; that's what I meant with my comment before
> The argument of a xsd:restriction in the spec will
> help little. Just
> taking old Facelets is *not* a solution, because the
> rest of the application may want to use the new features.
> Please try filing this as a bug to Mojarra as Matthias
> proposed - if they fix it, MyFaces may insist on version=2.0, but if they
> don't I think we shouldn't
> either.
I agree
> I've carried the question whether a JSF 2.0 compatible implementation is
> required to refuse old version facelets taglibs into the EG - let's see,
> what they have to say
technically, I think now we are correct.
@Jakob: Did you create such a bug against the RI ?
(that they allow "old" Facelets) maybe another on
not being (too) clear in the spec about it...
-Matthias
> on this ...
>
> Best regards,
> Ganesh
>>
>> I see both ways; I think I don't like the fact that the RI has this "bug"
>> :)
>> So, end of the story is, almost everybody will blame this to us ;-)
>> "Oh, crappy MyFaces doesn't work" etc :) All the FUD! :)
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
Re: [core] Backwards compatibility (e.g. MYFACES-2543)
Posted by Ganesh <ga...@j4fry.org>.
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
of a xsd:restriction in the spec will help little. Just
taking old Facelets is *not* a solution, because the
rest of the application may want to use the new features.
Please try filing this as a bug to Mojarra as Matthias
proposed - if they fix it, MyFaces may insist on
version=2.0, but if they don't I think we shouldn't
either.
I've carried the question whether a JSF 2.0 compatible
implementation is required to refuse old version facelets
taglibs into the EG - let's see, what they have to say
on this ...
Best regards,
Ganesh
> I see both ways; I think I don't like the fact that the RI has this "bug" :)
> So, end of the story is, almost everybody will blame this to us ;-)
> "Oh, crappy MyFaces doesn't work" etc :) All the FUD! :)
Re: [core] Backwards compatibility (e.g. MYFACES-2543)
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 7:31 PM, Mike Kienenberger <mk...@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" :)
So, end of the story is, almost everybody will blame this to use ;-)
"Oh, crappy MyFaces doesn't work" etc :) All the FUD! :)
>
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 1:27 PM, Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Can it be made into a configuration option?
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@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 "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 Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> 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 <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> 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 read). I think myfaces is
>>>>> doing right and really ri is mixing the two config files by some unknown
>>>>> reason.
>>>>>
>>>>> regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Leonardo Uribe
>>>>>
>>>>> 2010/2/9 Jakob Korherr <ja...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is also specified in the spec (although completely hidden in the
>>>>>> appendix): take a look at the xsd type definition of
>>>>>> facelet-taglib-versionType. It says "This type contains the recognized
>>>>>> versions of facelet-taglib supported." and "2.0" is the only allowed value
>>>>>> for this attribute.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Jakob
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2010/2/9 Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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 (and there is some parameter to disable Facelets2)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Matthias
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Matthias Wessendorf
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
>>>>>>> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
>>>>>>> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Matthias Wessendorf
>>>>
>>>> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
>>>> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
>>>> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Matthias Wessendorf
>>>
>>> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
>>> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
>>> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>>>
>>
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
Re: [core] Backwards compatibility (e.g. MYFACES-2543)
Posted by Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com>.
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 <mk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Can it be made into a configuration option?
>
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@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 "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 Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> 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 <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 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 read). I think myfaces is
>>>> doing right and really ri is mixing the two config files by some unknown
>>>> reason.
>>>>
>>>> regards,
>>>>
>>>> Leonardo Uribe
>>>>
>>>> 2010/2/9 Jakob Korherr <ja...@gmail.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is also specified in the spec (although completely hidden in the
>>>>> appendix): take a look at the xsd type definition of
>>>>> facelet-taglib-versionType. It says "This type contains the recognized
>>>>> versions of facelet-taglib supported." and "2.0" is the only allowed value
>>>>> for this attribute.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Jakob
>>>>>
>>>>> 2010/2/9 Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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 (and there is some parameter to disable Facelets2)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Matthias
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Matthias Wessendorf
>>>>>>
>>>>>> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
>>>>>> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
>>>>>> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Matthias Wessendorf
>>>
>>> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
>>> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
>>> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Matthias Wessendorf
>>
>> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
>> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
>> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>>
>
Re: [core] Backwards compatibility (e.g. MYFACES-2543)
Posted by Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com>.
Can it be made into a configuration option?
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@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 "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 Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
>> 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 <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 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 read). I think myfaces is
>>> doing right and really ri is mixing the two config files by some unknown
>>> reason.
>>>
>>> regards,
>>>
>>> Leonardo Uribe
>>>
>>> 2010/2/9 Jakob Korherr <ja...@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> This is also specified in the spec (although completely hidden in the
>>>> appendix): take a look at the xsd type definition of
>>>> facelet-taglib-versionType. It says "This type contains the recognized
>>>> versions of facelet-taglib supported." and "2.0" is the only allowed value
>>>> for this attribute.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Jakob
>>>>
>>>> 2010/2/9 Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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 (and there is some parameter to disable Facelets2)
>>>>>
>>>>> -Matthias
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Matthias Wessendorf
>>>>>
>>>>> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
>>>>> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
>>>>> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Matthias Wessendorf
>>
>> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
>> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
>> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Matthias Wessendorf
>
> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>
Re: [core] Backwards compatibility (e.g. MYFACES-2543)
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>.
...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 <ma...@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 "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 Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
>> 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 <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 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 read). I think myfaces is
>>> doing right and really ri is mixing the two config files by some unknown
>>> reason.
>>>
>>> regards,
>>>
>>> Leonardo Uribe
>>>
>>> 2010/2/9 Jakob Korherr <ja...@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> This is also specified in the spec (although completely hidden in the
>>>> appendix): take a look at the xsd type definition of
>>>> facelet-taglib-versionType. It says "This type contains the recognized
>>>> versions of facelet-taglib supported." and "2.0" is the only allowed value
>>>> for this attribute.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Jakob
>>>>
>>>> 2010/2/9 Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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 (and there is some parameter to disable Facelets2)
>>>>>
>>>>> -Matthias
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Matthias Wessendorf
>>>>>
>>>>> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
>>>>> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
>>>>> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Matthias Wessendorf
>>
>> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
>> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
>> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Matthias Wessendorf
>
> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
Re: [core] Backwards compatibility (e.g. MYFACES-2543)
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>.
... 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 Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> 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 <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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 read). I think myfaces is
>> doing right and really ri is mixing the two config files by some unknown
>> reason.
>>
>> regards,
>>
>> Leonardo Uribe
>>
>> 2010/2/9 Jakob Korherr <ja...@gmail.com>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> This is also specified in the spec (although completely hidden in the
>>> appendix): take a look at the xsd type definition of
>>> facelet-taglib-versionType. It says "This type contains the recognized
>>> versions of facelet-taglib supported." and "2.0" is the only allowed value
>>> for this attribute.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Jakob
>>>
>>> 2010/2/9 Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>
>>>>
>>>> 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 (and there is some parameter to disable Facelets2)
>>>>
>>>> -Matthias
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Matthias Wessendorf
>>>>
>>>> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
>>>> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
>>>> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Matthias Wessendorf
>
> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
Re: [core] Backwards compatibility (e.g. MYFACES-2543)
Posted by Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@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 ?
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 7:04 PM, Leonardo Uribe <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 read). I think myfaces is
> doing right and really ri is mixing the two config files by some unknown
> reason.
>
> regards,
>
> Leonardo Uribe
>
> 2010/2/9 Jakob Korherr <ja...@gmail.com>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> This is also specified in the spec (although completely hidden in the
>> appendix): take a look at the xsd type definition of
>> facelet-taglib-versionType. It says "This type contains the recognized
>> versions of facelet-taglib supported." and "2.0" is the only allowed value
>> for this attribute.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Jakob
>>
>> 2010/2/9 Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>
>>>
>>> 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 (and there is some parameter to disable Facelets2)
>>>
>>> -Matthias
>>>
>>> --
>>> Matthias Wessendorf
>>>
>>> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
>>> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
>>> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>>
>
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
Re: [core] Backwards compatibility (e.g. MYFACES-2543)
Posted by Leonardo Uribe <lu...@gmail.com>.
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 read). I think myfaces is
doing right and really ri is mixing the two config files by some unknown
reason.
regards,
Leonardo Uribe
2010/2/9 Jakob Korherr <ja...@gmail.com>
> 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.
>
> This is also specified in the spec (although completely hidden in the
> appendix): take a look at the xsd type definition of
> facelet-taglib-versionType. It says "This type contains the recognized
> versions of facelet-taglib supported." and "2.0" is the only allowed value
> for this attribute.
>
> Regards,
> Jakob
>
> 2010/2/9 Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>
>
> 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 (and there is some parameter to disable Facelets2)
>>
>> -Matthias
>>
>> --
>> Matthias Wessendorf
>>
>> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
>> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
>> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>>
>
>
Re: [core] Backwards compatibility (e.g. MYFACES-2543)
Posted by Jakob Korherr <ja...@gmail.com>.
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.
This is also specified in the spec (although completely hidden in the
appendix): take a look at the xsd type definition of
facelet-taglib-versionType. It says "This type contains the recognized
versions of facelet-taglib supported." and "2.0" is the only allowed value
for this attribute.
Regards,
Jakob
2010/2/9 Matthias Wessendorf <ma...@apache.org>
> 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 (and there is some parameter to disable Facelets2)
>
> -Matthias
>
> --
> Matthias Wessendorf
>
> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>