You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openwebbeans.apache.org by Gurkan Erdogdu <gu...@yahoo.com> on 2010/12/06 21:24:16 UTC

Yan:: svn commit: r1042754 - /openwebbeans/trunk/webbeans-jsf/src/main/resources/META-INF/faces-config.xml

Hi David
we designed owb as a plugin way. When he wants to add jsf support, he simply drops webeansjsf.jar into classpath. Removing factory from faces config prohibits it. Therefore this issue must be resolved on geronimo side instead of owb site. moreover, not every jsf application must be assumed as cdi application.  for being cdi, there exist beans.xml under web-inf.therefore i will revert this change.

Pzt, 06 Ara 2010 20:19 EET tarihinde djencks@apache.org şöyle yazdı:

>Author: djencks
>Date: Mon Dec  6 18:19:24 2010
>New Revision: 1042754
>
>URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1042754&view=rev
>Log:
>OWB-505 don't install OwbApplicationFactory by default
>
>Modified:
>    openwebbeans/trunk/webbeans-jsf/src/main/resources/META-INF/faces-config.xml
>
>Modified: openwebbeans/trunk/webbeans-jsf/src/main/resources/META-INF/faces-config.xml
>URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openwebbeans/trunk/webbeans-jsf/src/main/resources/META-INF/faces-config.xml?rev=1042754&r1=1042753&r2=1042754&view=diff
>==============================================================================
>--- openwebbeans/trunk/webbeans-jsf/src/main/resources/META-INF/faces-config.xml (original)
>+++ openwebbeans/trunk/webbeans-jsf/src/main/resources/META-INF/faces-config.xml Mon Dec  6 18:19:24 2010
>@@ -24,10 +24,6 @@ under the License.
> 
>     <name>org_apache_openwebbeans</name>
> 
>-    <factory>
>-        <application-factory>org.apache.webbeans.jsf.OwbApplicationFactory</application-factory>
>-    </factory>
>-
>     <application>
>         <view-handler>org.apache.webbeans.jsf.ConversationAwareViewHandler</view-handler>
>         <el-resolver>org.apache.webbeans.el.WebBeansELResolver</el-resolver>
>
>




Re: Yan:: svn commit: r1042754 - /openwebbeans/trunk/webbeans-jsf/src/main/resources/META-INF/faces-config.xml

Posted by Eric Covener <co...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 1:25 PM, David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Investigating this is taking longer than I hoped.  There's a tck test for 6.4.3, but it doesn't test most of the requirements in 6.4.3 and it's not clear to me that it has any relevance to how EL would work in a jsp or jsf page since the test doesn't involve a jsp or jsf.  I enhanced the test to check the "destroy at end of evaluation" and "new expression results in new bean" requirements and now it fails in geronimo with or without the modification in faces-config.xml because the beans aren't getting destroyed after expression evaluation.  I'm going to try writing an actual jsp page to check if it works.


FYI I'm not sure OWB-401 is actually resolved.

Re: Yan:: svn commit: r1042754 - /openwebbeans/trunk/webbeans-jsf/src/main/resources/META-INF/faces-config.xml

Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
6.4.3 starts out...

Suppose a Unified EL expression in a JSF or JSP page...

I wasn't going to say anything until I had a test I believed, but I don't see how the ApplicationFactory solution works for jsps, and I don't see how something that works for jsps can fail to also work for jsf pages.  So far I still think the OwbApplicationFactory doesn't do anything useful, but I'm keeping an open mind until I have more evidence.

thanks
david jencks

On Dec 8, 2010, at 11:37 AM, Gurkan Erdogdu wrote:

> David,
> 
> This is for JSF pages not an ordinary JSP pages. This is the reason why we 
> registered application factory.
> 
> --Gurkan
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>
> To: dev@openwebbeans.apache.org
> Sent: Wed, December 8, 2010 8:25:29 PM
> Subject: Re: Yan:: svn commit: r1042754 - 
> /openwebbeans/trunk/webbeans-jsf/src/main/resources/META-INF/faces-config.xml
> 
> Investigating this is taking longer than I hoped.  There's a tck test for 6.4.3, 
> but it doesn't test most of the requirements in 6.4.3 and it's not clear to me 
> that it has any relevance to how EL would work in a jsp or jsf page since the 
> test doesn't involve a jsp or jsf.  I enhanced the test to check the "destroy at 
> end of evaluation" and "new expression results in new bean" requirements and now 
> it fails in geronimo with or without the modification in faces-config.xml 
> because the beans aren't getting destroyed after expression evaluation.  I'm 
> going to try writing an actual jsp page to check if it works.
> 
> The tck test is 
> 
> org.jboss.jsr299.tck.tests.lookup.el.ResolutionByNameTest
> 
> and my altered method is
> 
>   @Test
>   @SpecAssertion(section="6.4.3", id="a")
>   public void testQualifiedNameLookup()
>   {
>      assert 
> getCurrentConfiguration().getEl().evaluateValueExpression("#{(game.value == 
> 'foo' and game.value == 'foo') ? game.value == 'foo' : false}", Boolean.class);
>      assert getInstanceByType(Counter.class).getCount() == 1;
> //original test stops here
>      assert getInstanceByType(Counter.class).getDestroy() == 1;
>      assert 
> getCurrentConfiguration().getEl().evaluateValueExpression("#{(game.value == 
> 'foo' and game.value == 'foo') ? game.value == 'foo' : false}", Boolean.class);
>      assert getInstanceByType(Counter.class).getCount() == 2;
>      assert getInstanceByType(Counter.class).getDestroy() == 2;
>   }
> 
> 
> with the obvious corresponding changes in Counter and Game.
> 
> thanks
> david jencks
> 
> 
> On Dec 7, 2010, at 9:49 AM, David Jencks wrote:
> 
>> I'm investigating this further.  I don't see any jcdi tck failures in geronimo 
>> with my patch so I'd like to determine if the requirements in 6.4.3 are actually 
>> tested.
>> 
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>> 
>> On Dec 7, 2010, at 5:27 AM, Gurkan Erdogdu wrote:
>> 
>>> David,
>>> 
>>> Does it make sense?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ----- Original Message ----
>>> From: Gurkan Erdogdu <gu...@yahoo.com>
>>> To: dev@openwebbeans.apache.org
>>> Sent: Tue, December 7, 2010 8:55:45 AM
>>> Subject: Re: Yan:: svn commit: r1042754 - 
>>> /openwebbeans/trunk/webbeans-jsf/src/main/resources/META-INF/faces-config.xml
>>> 
>>> Hello David,
>>> 
>>> Reason of installing OwbApplication is that after evaulating EL expression, you 
>>> 
>>> must destroy all dependent instances using in EL expression. (See specification 
>>> 
>>> section 6.4.3, Dependent Pseudo-scope and Unified EL).
>>> 
>>> Therefore we have to implement our own ValueExpression class. Our custom 
>>> ValueExpression is returned from WrappedExpressionFactory#createValueExpression 
>>> 
>>> (in webbeans-impl).  OwbApplication#getExpressionFactory is responsible for 
>>> getting WrappedExpressionFactory for getting WrappedExpressionFactory. 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> As I said in my previons email, if developer wants to use OWB in JSF 
>>> applications, it must drop webbeans-jsf.jar into its classpath. Otherwise, he 
>>> is 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> not able to use spec. compliant OWB implementation.
>>> 
>>> Regards;
>>> 
>>> --Gurkan
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ----- Original Message ----
>>> From: David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>
>>> To: dev@openwebbeans.apache.org
>>> Sent: Mon, December 6, 2010 11:55:59 PM
>>> Subject: Re: Yan:: svn commit: r1042754 - 
>>> /openwebbeans/trunk/webbeans-jsf/src/main/resources/META-INF/faces-config.xml
>>> 
>>> Irrespective of what happens to this commit, do you see any spec support for 
>>> installing OwbApplicationFactory for every jsf-aware web beans app?  AFAICT 
>>> there is none and installing it is a convenience for users that they may or may 
>>> 
>>> not want.  If you see something in the spec contrary to this I would like to 
>>> know about it.  Since I don't see any spec support for this I wonder if 
>>> installing it automatically results in portable apps.
>>> 
>>> thanks
>>> david jencks
>>> 
>>> On Dec 6, 2010, at 12:24 PM, Gurkan Erdogdu wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi David
>>>> we designed owb as a plugin way. When he wants to add jsf support, he simply 
> 
>>>> drops webeansjsf.jar into classpath. Removing factory from faces config 
>>>> prohibits it. Therefore this issue must be resolved on geronimo side instead of 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>>> owb site. moreover, not every jsf application must be assumed as cdi 
>>>> application.  for being cdi, there exist beans.xml under web-inf.therefore i 
> 
>>>> will revert this change.
>>>> 
>>>> Pzt, 06 Ara 2010 20:19 EET tarihinde djencks@apache.org şöyle yazdı:
>>>> 
>>>>> Author: djencks
>>>>> Date: Mon Dec  6 18:19:24 2010
>>>>> New Revision: 1042754
>>>>> 
>>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1042754&view=rev
>>>>> Log:
>>>>> OWB-505 don't install OwbApplicationFactory by default
>>>>> 
>>>>> Modified:
>>>>> 
>>> openwebbeans/trunk/webbeans-jsf/src/main/resources/META-INF/faces-config.xml
>>>>> 
>>>>> Modified: 
>>>>> 
> openwebbeans/trunk/webbeans-jsf/src/main/resources/META-INF/faces-config.xml
>>>>> URL: 
>>>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openwebbeans/trunk/webbeans-jsf/src/main/resources/META-INF/faces-config.xml?rev=1042754&r1=1042753&r2=1042754&view=diff
>>>>> f
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>> 
> ==============================================================================
>>>>> --- 
>>>>> openwebbeans/trunk/webbeans-jsf/src/main/resources/META-INF/faces-config.xml 
>> 
>>>>> (original)
>>>>> +++ 
>>>>> openwebbeans/trunk/webbeans-jsf/src/main/resources/META-INF/faces-config.xml 
>>>>> Mon 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Dec  6 18:19:24 2010
>>>>> @@ -24,10 +24,6 @@ under the License.
>>>>> 
>>>>> <name>org_apache_openwebbeans</name>
>>>>> 
>>>>> -    <factory>
>>>>> -        
>>>>> <application-factory>org.apache.webbeans.jsf.OwbApplicationFactory</application-factory>
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> -    </factory>
>>>>> -
>>>>> <application>
>>>>> 
>>>>> <view-handler>org.apache.webbeans.jsf.ConversationAwareViewHandler</view-handler>
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>     <el-resolver>org.apache.webbeans.el.WebBeansELResolver</el-resolver>
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> 


Re: Yan:: svn commit: r1042754 - /openwebbeans/trunk/webbeans-jsf/src/main/resources/META-INF/faces-config.xml

Posted by Gurkan Erdogdu <gu...@yahoo.com>.
David,

This is for JSF pages not an ordinary JSP pages. This is the reason why we 
registered application factory.

--Gurkan



----- Original Message ----
From: David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>
To: dev@openwebbeans.apache.org
Sent: Wed, December 8, 2010 8:25:29 PM
Subject: Re: Yan:: svn commit: r1042754 - 
/openwebbeans/trunk/webbeans-jsf/src/main/resources/META-INF/faces-config.xml

Investigating this is taking longer than I hoped.  There's a tck test for 6.4.3, 
but it doesn't test most of the requirements in 6.4.3 and it's not clear to me 
that it has any relevance to how EL would work in a jsp or jsf page since the 
test doesn't involve a jsp or jsf.  I enhanced the test to check the "destroy at 
end of evaluation" and "new expression results in new bean" requirements and now 
it fails in geronimo with or without the modification in faces-config.xml 
because the beans aren't getting destroyed after expression evaluation.  I'm 
going to try writing an actual jsp page to check if it works.

The tck test is 

org.jboss.jsr299.tck.tests.lookup.el.ResolutionByNameTest

and my altered method is

   @Test
   @SpecAssertion(section="6.4.3", id="a")
   public void testQualifiedNameLookup()
   {
      assert 
getCurrentConfiguration().getEl().evaluateValueExpression("#{(game.value == 
'foo' and game.value == 'foo') ? game.value == 'foo' : false}", Boolean.class);
      assert getInstanceByType(Counter.class).getCount() == 1;
//original test stops here
      assert getInstanceByType(Counter.class).getDestroy() == 1;
      assert 
getCurrentConfiguration().getEl().evaluateValueExpression("#{(game.value == 
'foo' and game.value == 'foo') ? game.value == 'foo' : false}", Boolean.class);
      assert getInstanceByType(Counter.class).getCount() == 2;
      assert getInstanceByType(Counter.class).getDestroy() == 2;
   }


with the obvious corresponding changes in Counter and Game.

thanks
david jencks


On Dec 7, 2010, at 9:49 AM, David Jencks wrote:

> I'm investigating this further.  I don't see any jcdi tck failures in geronimo 
>with my patch so I'd like to determine if the requirements in 6.4.3 are actually 
>tested.
> 
> thanks
> david jencks
> 
> On Dec 7, 2010, at 5:27 AM, Gurkan Erdogdu wrote:
> 
>> David,
>> 
>> Does it make sense?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: Gurkan Erdogdu <gu...@yahoo.com>
>> To: dev@openwebbeans.apache.org
>> Sent: Tue, December 7, 2010 8:55:45 AM
>> Subject: Re: Yan:: svn commit: r1042754 - 
>> /openwebbeans/trunk/webbeans-jsf/src/main/resources/META-INF/faces-config.xml
>> 
>> Hello David,
>> 
>> Reason of installing OwbApplication is that after evaulating EL expression, you 
>>
>> must destroy all dependent instances using in EL expression. (See specification 
>>
>> section 6.4.3, Dependent Pseudo-scope and Unified EL).
>> 
>> Therefore we have to implement our own ValueExpression class. Our custom 
>> ValueExpression is returned from WrappedExpressionFactory#createValueExpression 
>>
>> (in webbeans-impl).  OwbApplication#getExpressionFactory is responsible for 
>> getting WrappedExpressionFactory for getting WrappedExpressionFactory. 
>> 
>> 
>> As I said in my previons email, if developer wants to use OWB in JSF 
>> applications, it must drop webbeans-jsf.jar into its classpath. Otherwise, he 
>>is 
>>
>> 
>> not able to use spec. compliant OWB implementation.
>> 
>> Regards;
>> 
>> --Gurkan
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>
>> To: dev@openwebbeans.apache.org
>> Sent: Mon, December 6, 2010 11:55:59 PM
>> Subject: Re: Yan:: svn commit: r1042754 - 
>> /openwebbeans/trunk/webbeans-jsf/src/main/resources/META-INF/faces-config.xml
>> 
>> Irrespective of what happens to this commit, do you see any spec support for 
>> installing OwbApplicationFactory for every jsf-aware web beans app?  AFAICT 
>> there is none and installing it is a convenience for users that they may or may 
>>
>> not want.  If you see something in the spec contrary to this I would like to 
>> know about it.  Since I don't see any spec support for this I wonder if 
>> installing it automatically results in portable apps.
>> 
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>> 
>> On Dec 6, 2010, at 12:24 PM, Gurkan Erdogdu wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi David
>>> we designed owb as a plugin way. When he wants to add jsf support, he simply 

>>> drops webeansjsf.jar into classpath. Removing factory from faces config 
>>> prohibits it. Therefore this issue must be resolved on geronimo side instead of 
>>>
>> 
>>> owb site. moreover, not every jsf application must be assumed as cdi 
>>> application.  for being cdi, there exist beans.xml under web-inf.therefore i 

>>> will revert this change.
>>> 
>>> Pzt, 06 Ara 2010 20:19 EET tarihinde djencks@apache.org şöyle yazdı:
>>> 
>>>> Author: djencks
>>>> Date: Mon Dec  6 18:19:24 2010
>>>> New Revision: 1042754
>>>> 
>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1042754&view=rev
>>>> Log:
>>>> OWB-505 don't install OwbApplicationFactory by default
>>>> 
>>>> Modified:
>>>> 
>> openwebbeans/trunk/webbeans-jsf/src/main/resources/META-INF/faces-config.xml
>>>> 
>>>> Modified: 
>>>> 
openwebbeans/trunk/webbeans-jsf/src/main/resources/META-INF/faces-config.xml
>>>> URL: 
>>>>http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openwebbeans/trunk/webbeans-jsf/src/main/resources/META-INF/faces-config.xml?rev=1042754&r1=1042753&r2=1042754&view=diff
>>>>f
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
==============================================================================
>>>> --- 
>>>> openwebbeans/trunk/webbeans-jsf/src/main/resources/META-INF/faces-config.xml 
>
>>>> (original)
>>>> +++ 
>>>> openwebbeans/trunk/webbeans-jsf/src/main/resources/META-INF/faces-config.xml 
>>>>Mon 
>>>>
>>>> 
>>>> Dec  6 18:19:24 2010
>>>> @@ -24,10 +24,6 @@ under the License.
>>>> 
>>>>  <name>org_apache_openwebbeans</name>
>>>> 
>>>> -    <factory>
>>>> -        
>>>><application-factory>org.apache.webbeans.jsf.OwbApplicationFactory</application-factory>
>>>>>
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -    </factory>
>>>> -
>>>>  <application>
>>>> 
>>>><view-handler>org.apache.webbeans.jsf.ConversationAwareViewHandler</view-handler>
>>>>>
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>      <el-resolver>org.apache.webbeans.el.WebBeansELResolver</el-resolver>
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 



Re: Yan:: svn commit: r1042754 - /openwebbeans/trunk/webbeans-jsf/src/main/resources/META-INF/faces-config.xml

Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
Investigating this is taking longer than I hoped.  There's a tck test for 6.4.3, but it doesn't test most of the requirements in 6.4.3 and it's not clear to me that it has any relevance to how EL would work in a jsp or jsf page since the test doesn't involve a jsp or jsf.  I enhanced the test to check the "destroy at end of evaluation" and "new expression results in new bean" requirements and now it fails in geronimo with or without the modification in faces-config.xml because the beans aren't getting destroyed after expression evaluation.  I'm going to try writing an actual jsp page to check if it works.

The tck test is 

org.jboss.jsr299.tck.tests.lookup.el.ResolutionByNameTest

and my altered method is

   @Test
   @SpecAssertion(section="6.4.3", id="a")
   public void testQualifiedNameLookup()
   {
      assert getCurrentConfiguration().getEl().evaluateValueExpression("#{(game.value == 'foo' and game.value == 'foo') ? game.value == 'foo' : false}", Boolean.class);
      assert getInstanceByType(Counter.class).getCount() == 1;
//original test stops here
      assert getInstanceByType(Counter.class).getDestroy() == 1;
      assert getCurrentConfiguration().getEl().evaluateValueExpression("#{(game.value == 'foo' and game.value == 'foo') ? game.value == 'foo' : false}", Boolean.class);
      assert getInstanceByType(Counter.class).getCount() == 2;
      assert getInstanceByType(Counter.class).getDestroy() == 2;
   }


with the obvious corresponding changes in Counter and Game.

thanks
david jencks


On Dec 7, 2010, at 9:49 AM, David Jencks wrote:

> I'm investigating this further.  I don't see any jcdi tck failures in geronimo with my patch so I'd like to determine if the requirements in 6.4.3 are actually tested.
> 
> thanks
> david jencks
> 
> On Dec 7, 2010, at 5:27 AM, Gurkan Erdogdu wrote:
> 
>> David,
>> 
>> Does it make sense?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: Gurkan Erdogdu <gu...@yahoo.com>
>> To: dev@openwebbeans.apache.org
>> Sent: Tue, December 7, 2010 8:55:45 AM
>> Subject: Re: Yan:: svn commit: r1042754 - 
>> /openwebbeans/trunk/webbeans-jsf/src/main/resources/META-INF/faces-config.xml
>> 
>> Hello David,
>> 
>> Reason of installing OwbApplication is that after evaulating EL expression, you 
>> must destroy all dependent instances using in EL expression. (See specification 
>> section 6.4.3, Dependent Pseudo-scope and Unified EL).
>> 
>> Therefore we have to implement our own ValueExpression class. Our custom 
>> ValueExpression is returned from WrappedExpressionFactory#createValueExpression 
>> (in webbeans-impl).  OwbApplication#getExpressionFactory is responsible for 
>> getting WrappedExpressionFactory for getting WrappedExpressionFactory. 
>> 
>> 
>> As I said in my previons email, if developer wants to use OWB in JSF 
>> applications, it must drop webbeans-jsf.jar into its classpath. Otherwise, he is 
>> 
>> not able to use spec. compliant OWB implementation.
>> 
>> Regards;
>> 
>> --Gurkan
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>
>> To: dev@openwebbeans.apache.org
>> Sent: Mon, December 6, 2010 11:55:59 PM
>> Subject: Re: Yan:: svn commit: r1042754 - 
>> /openwebbeans/trunk/webbeans-jsf/src/main/resources/META-INF/faces-config.xml
>> 
>> Irrespective of what happens to this commit, do you see any spec support for 
>> installing OwbApplicationFactory for every jsf-aware web beans app?  AFAICT 
>> there is none and installing it is a convenience for users that they may or may 
>> not want.  If you see something in the spec contrary to this I would like to 
>> know about it.  Since I don't see any spec support for this I wonder if 
>> installing it automatically results in portable apps.
>> 
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>> 
>> On Dec 6, 2010, at 12:24 PM, Gurkan Erdogdu wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi David
>>> we designed owb as a plugin way. When he wants to add jsf support, he simply 
>>> drops webeansjsf.jar into classpath. Removing factory from faces config 
>>> prohibits it. Therefore this issue must be resolved on geronimo side instead of 
>> 
>>> owb site. moreover, not every jsf application must be assumed as cdi 
>>> application.  for being cdi, there exist beans.xml under web-inf.therefore i 
>>> will revert this change.
>>> 
>>> Pzt, 06 Ara 2010 20:19 EET tarihinde djencks@apache.org şöyle yazdı:
>>> 
>>>> Author: djencks
>>>> Date: Mon Dec  6 18:19:24 2010
>>>> New Revision: 1042754
>>>> 
>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1042754&view=rev
>>>> Log:
>>>> OWB-505 don't install OwbApplicationFactory by default
>>>> 
>>>> Modified:
>>>> 
>> openwebbeans/trunk/webbeans-jsf/src/main/resources/META-INF/faces-config.xml
>>>> 
>>>> Modified: 
>>>> openwebbeans/trunk/webbeans-jsf/src/main/resources/META-INF/faces-config.xml
>>>> URL: 
>>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openwebbeans/trunk/webbeans-jsf/src/main/resources/META-INF/faces-config.xml?rev=1042754&r1=1042753&r2=1042754&view=diff
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>> ==============================================================================
>>>> --- 
>>>> openwebbeans/trunk/webbeans-jsf/src/main/resources/META-INF/faces-config.xml 
>>>> (original)
>>>> +++ 
>>>> openwebbeans/trunk/webbeans-jsf/src/main/resources/META-INF/faces-config.xml Mon 
>>>> 
>>>> Dec  6 18:19:24 2010
>>>> @@ -24,10 +24,6 @@ under the License.
>>>> 
>>>>  <name>org_apache_openwebbeans</name>
>>>> 
>>>> -    <factory>
>>>> -        
>>>> <application-factory>org.apache.webbeans.jsf.OwbApplicationFactory</application-factory>
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -    </factory>
>>>> -
>>>>  <application>
>>>> 
>>>> <view-handler>org.apache.webbeans.jsf.ConversationAwareViewHandler</view-handler>
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>      <el-resolver>org.apache.webbeans.el.WebBeansELResolver</el-resolver>
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 


Re: Yan:: svn commit: r1042754 - /openwebbeans/trunk/webbeans-jsf/src/main/resources/META-INF/faces-config.xml

Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
I'm investigating this further.  I don't see any jcdi tck failures in geronimo with my patch so I'd like to determine if the requirements in 6.4.3 are actually tested.

thanks
david jencks

On Dec 7, 2010, at 5:27 AM, Gurkan Erdogdu wrote:

> David,
> 
> Does it make sense?
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Gurkan Erdogdu <gu...@yahoo.com>
> To: dev@openwebbeans.apache.org
> Sent: Tue, December 7, 2010 8:55:45 AM
> Subject: Re: Yan:: svn commit: r1042754 - 
> /openwebbeans/trunk/webbeans-jsf/src/main/resources/META-INF/faces-config.xml
> 
> Hello David,
> 
> Reason of installing OwbApplication is that after evaulating EL expression, you 
> must destroy all dependent instances using in EL expression. (See specification 
> section 6.4.3, Dependent Pseudo-scope and Unified EL).
> 
> Therefore we have to implement our own ValueExpression class. Our custom 
> ValueExpression is returned from WrappedExpressionFactory#createValueExpression 
> (in webbeans-impl).  OwbApplication#getExpressionFactory is responsible for 
> getting WrappedExpressionFactory for getting WrappedExpressionFactory. 
> 
> 
> As I said in my previons email, if developer wants to use OWB in JSF 
> applications, it must drop webbeans-jsf.jar into its classpath. Otherwise, he is 
> 
> not able to use spec. compliant OWB implementation.
> 
> Regards;
> 
> --Gurkan
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>
> To: dev@openwebbeans.apache.org
> Sent: Mon, December 6, 2010 11:55:59 PM
> Subject: Re: Yan:: svn commit: r1042754 - 
> /openwebbeans/trunk/webbeans-jsf/src/main/resources/META-INF/faces-config.xml
> 
> Irrespective of what happens to this commit, do you see any spec support for 
> installing OwbApplicationFactory for every jsf-aware web beans app?  AFAICT 
> there is none and installing it is a convenience for users that they may or may 
> not want.  If you see something in the spec contrary to this I would like to 
> know about it.  Since I don't see any spec support for this I wonder if 
> installing it automatically results in portable apps.
> 
> thanks
> david jencks
> 
> On Dec 6, 2010, at 12:24 PM, Gurkan Erdogdu wrote:
> 
>> Hi David
>> we designed owb as a plugin way. When he wants to add jsf support, he simply 
>> drops webeansjsf.jar into classpath. Removing factory from faces config 
>> prohibits it. Therefore this issue must be resolved on geronimo side instead of 
> 
>> owb site. moreover, not every jsf application must be assumed as cdi 
>> application.  for being cdi, there exist beans.xml under web-inf.therefore i 
>> will revert this change.
>> 
>> Pzt, 06 Ara 2010 20:19 EET tarihinde djencks@apache.org şöyle yazdı:
>> 
>>> Author: djencks
>>> Date: Mon Dec  6 18:19:24 2010
>>> New Revision: 1042754
>>> 
>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1042754&view=rev
>>> Log:
>>> OWB-505 don't install OwbApplicationFactory by default
>>> 
>>> Modified:
>>> 
> openwebbeans/trunk/webbeans-jsf/src/main/resources/META-INF/faces-config.xml
>>> 
>>> Modified: 
>>> openwebbeans/trunk/webbeans-jsf/src/main/resources/META-INF/faces-config.xml
>>> URL: 
>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openwebbeans/trunk/webbeans-jsf/src/main/resources/META-INF/faces-config.xml?rev=1042754&r1=1042753&r2=1042754&view=diff
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
> ==============================================================================
>>> --- 
>>> openwebbeans/trunk/webbeans-jsf/src/main/resources/META-INF/faces-config.xml 
>>> (original)
>>> +++ 
>>> openwebbeans/trunk/webbeans-jsf/src/main/resources/META-INF/faces-config.xml Mon 
>>> 
>>> Dec  6 18:19:24 2010
>>> @@ -24,10 +24,6 @@ under the License.
>>> 
>>>   <name>org_apache_openwebbeans</name>
>>> 
>>> -    <factory>
>>> -        
>>> <application-factory>org.apache.webbeans.jsf.OwbApplicationFactory</application-factory>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -    </factory>
>>> -
>>>   <application>
>>> 
>>> <view-handler>org.apache.webbeans.jsf.ConversationAwareViewHandler</view-handler>
>>> 
>>> 
>>>       <el-resolver>org.apache.webbeans.el.WebBeansELResolver</el-resolver>
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 


Re: Yan:: svn commit: r1042754 - /openwebbeans/trunk/webbeans-jsf/src/main/resources/META-INF/faces-config.xml

Posted by Gurkan Erdogdu <gu...@yahoo.com>.
David,

Does it make sense?



----- Original Message ----
From: Gurkan Erdogdu <gu...@yahoo.com>
To: dev@openwebbeans.apache.org
Sent: Tue, December 7, 2010 8:55:45 AM
Subject: Re: Yan:: svn commit: r1042754 - 
/openwebbeans/trunk/webbeans-jsf/src/main/resources/META-INF/faces-config.xml

Hello David,

Reason of installing OwbApplication is that after evaulating EL expression, you 
must destroy all dependent instances using in EL expression. (See specification 
section 6.4.3, Dependent Pseudo-scope and Unified EL).

Therefore we have to implement our own ValueExpression class. Our custom 
ValueExpression is returned from WrappedExpressionFactory#createValueExpression 
(in webbeans-impl).  OwbApplication#getExpressionFactory is responsible for 
getting WrappedExpressionFactory for getting WrappedExpressionFactory. 


As I said in my previons email, if developer wants to use OWB in JSF 
applications, it must drop webbeans-jsf.jar into its classpath. Otherwise, he is 

not able to use spec. compliant OWB implementation.

Regards;

--Gurkan



----- Original Message ----
From: David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>
To: dev@openwebbeans.apache.org
Sent: Mon, December 6, 2010 11:55:59 PM
Subject: Re: Yan:: svn commit: r1042754 - 
/openwebbeans/trunk/webbeans-jsf/src/main/resources/META-INF/faces-config.xml

Irrespective of what happens to this commit, do you see any spec support for 
installing OwbApplicationFactory for every jsf-aware web beans app?  AFAICT 
there is none and installing it is a convenience for users that they may or may 
not want.  If you see something in the spec contrary to this I would like to 
know about it.  Since I don't see any spec support for this I wonder if 
installing it automatically results in portable apps.

thanks
david jencks

On Dec 6, 2010, at 12:24 PM, Gurkan Erdogdu wrote:

> Hi David
> we designed owb as a plugin way. When he wants to add jsf support, he simply 
>drops webeansjsf.jar into classpath. Removing factory from faces config 
>prohibits it. Therefore this issue must be resolved on geronimo side instead of 

>owb site. moreover, not every jsf application must be assumed as cdi 
>application.  for being cdi, there exist beans.xml under web-inf.therefore i 
>will revert this change.
> 
> Pzt, 06 Ara 2010 20:19 EET tarihinde djencks@apache.org şöyle yazdı:
> 
>> Author: djencks
>> Date: Mon Dec  6 18:19:24 2010
>> New Revision: 1042754
>> 
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1042754&view=rev
>> Log:
>> OWB-505 don't install OwbApplicationFactory by default
>> 
>> Modified:
>>  
openwebbeans/trunk/webbeans-jsf/src/main/resources/META-INF/faces-config.xml
>> 
>> Modified: 
>>openwebbeans/trunk/webbeans-jsf/src/main/resources/META-INF/faces-config.xml
>> URL: 
>>http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openwebbeans/trunk/webbeans-jsf/src/main/resources/META-INF/faces-config.xml?rev=1042754&r1=1042753&r2=1042754&view=diff
>>
>>
>> 
==============================================================================
>> --- 
>>openwebbeans/trunk/webbeans-jsf/src/main/resources/META-INF/faces-config.xml 
>>(original)
>> +++ 
>>openwebbeans/trunk/webbeans-jsf/src/main/resources/META-INF/faces-config.xml Mon 
>>
>>Dec  6 18:19:24 2010
>> @@ -24,10 +24,6 @@ under the License.
>> 
>>    <name>org_apache_openwebbeans</name>
>> 
>> -    <factory>
>> -        
>><application-factory>org.apache.webbeans.jsf.OwbApplicationFactory</application-factory>
>>
>>
>> -    </factory>
>> -
>>    <application>
>>        
>><view-handler>org.apache.webbeans.jsf.ConversationAwareViewHandler</view-handler>
>>
>>
>>        <el-resolver>org.apache.webbeans.el.WebBeansELResolver</el-resolver>
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 



Re: Yan:: svn commit: r1042754 - /openwebbeans/trunk/webbeans-jsf/src/main/resources/META-INF/faces-config.xml

Posted by Gurkan Erdogdu <gu...@yahoo.com>.
Hello David,

Reason of installing OwbApplication is that after evaulating EL expression, you 
must destroy all dependent instances using in EL expression. (See specification 
section 6.4.3, Dependent Pseudo-scope and Unified EL).

Therefore we have to implement our own ValueExpression class. Our custom 
ValueExpression is returned from WrappedExpressionFactory#createValueExpression 
(in webbeans-impl).  OwbApplication#getExpressionFactory is responsible for 
getting WrappedExpressionFactory for getting WrappedExpressionFactory. 


As I said in my previons email, if developer wants to use OWB in JSF 
applications, it must drop webbeans-jsf.jar into its classpath. Otherwise, he is 
not able to use spec. compliant OWB implementation.

Regards;

--Gurkan



----- Original Message ----
From: David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>
To: dev@openwebbeans.apache.org
Sent: Mon, December 6, 2010 11:55:59 PM
Subject: Re: Yan:: svn commit: r1042754 - 
/openwebbeans/trunk/webbeans-jsf/src/main/resources/META-INF/faces-config.xml

Irrespective of what happens to this commit, do you see any spec support for 
installing OwbApplicationFactory for every jsf-aware web beans app?  AFAICT 
there is none and installing it is a convenience for users that they may or may 
not want.  If you see something in the spec contrary to this I would like to 
know about it.  Since I don't see any spec support for this I wonder if 
installing it automatically results in portable apps.

thanks
david jencks

On Dec 6, 2010, at 12:24 PM, Gurkan Erdogdu wrote:

> Hi David
> we designed owb as a plugin way. When he wants to add jsf support, he simply 
>drops webeansjsf.jar into classpath. Removing factory from faces config 
>prohibits it. Therefore this issue must be resolved on geronimo side instead of 
>owb site. moreover, not every jsf application must be assumed as cdi 
>application.  for being cdi, there exist beans.xml under web-inf.therefore i 
>will revert this change.
> 
> Pzt, 06 Ara 2010 20:19 EET tarihinde djencks@apache.org şöyle yazdı:
> 
>> Author: djencks
>> Date: Mon Dec  6 18:19:24 2010
>> New Revision: 1042754
>> 
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1042754&view=rev
>> Log:
>> OWB-505 don't install OwbApplicationFactory by default
>> 
>> Modified:
>>   
openwebbeans/trunk/webbeans-jsf/src/main/resources/META-INF/faces-config.xml
>> 
>> Modified: 
>>openwebbeans/trunk/webbeans-jsf/src/main/resources/META-INF/faces-config.xml
>> URL: 
>>http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openwebbeans/trunk/webbeans-jsf/src/main/resources/META-INF/faces-config.xml?rev=1042754&r1=1042753&r2=1042754&view=diff
>>
>> 
==============================================================================
>> --- 
>>openwebbeans/trunk/webbeans-jsf/src/main/resources/META-INF/faces-config.xml 
>>(original)
>> +++ 
>>openwebbeans/trunk/webbeans-jsf/src/main/resources/META-INF/faces-config.xml Mon 
>>Dec  6 18:19:24 2010
>> @@ -24,10 +24,6 @@ under the License.
>> 
>>    <name>org_apache_openwebbeans</name>
>> 
>> -    <factory>
>> -        
>><application-factory>org.apache.webbeans.jsf.OwbApplicationFactory</application-factory>
>>
>> -    </factory>
>> -
>>    <application>
>>        
>><view-handler>org.apache.webbeans.jsf.ConversationAwareViewHandler</view-handler>
>>
>>        <el-resolver>org.apache.webbeans.el.WebBeansELResolver</el-resolver>
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 



Re: Yan:: svn commit: r1042754 - /openwebbeans/trunk/webbeans-jsf/src/main/resources/META-INF/faces-config.xml

Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
Irrespective of what happens to this commit, do you see any spec support for installing OwbApplicationFactory for every jsf-aware web beans app?  AFAICT there is none and installing it is a convenience for users that they may or may not want.  If you see something in the spec contrary to this I would like to know about it.  Since I don't see any spec support for this I wonder if installing it automatically results in portable apps.

thanks
david jencks

On Dec 6, 2010, at 12:24 PM, Gurkan Erdogdu wrote:

> Hi David
> we designed owb as a plugin way. When he wants to add jsf support, he simply drops webeansjsf.jar into classpath. Removing factory from faces config prohibits it. Therefore this issue must be resolved on geronimo side instead of owb site. moreover, not every jsf application must be assumed as cdi application.  for being cdi, there exist beans.xml under web-inf.therefore i will revert this change.
> 
> Pzt, 06 Ara 2010 20:19 EET tarihinde djencks@apache.org şöyle yazdı:
> 
>> Author: djencks
>> Date: Mon Dec  6 18:19:24 2010
>> New Revision: 1042754
>> 
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1042754&view=rev
>> Log:
>> OWB-505 don't install OwbApplicationFactory by default
>> 
>> Modified:
>>   openwebbeans/trunk/webbeans-jsf/src/main/resources/META-INF/faces-config.xml
>> 
>> Modified: openwebbeans/trunk/webbeans-jsf/src/main/resources/META-INF/faces-config.xml
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openwebbeans/trunk/webbeans-jsf/src/main/resources/META-INF/faces-config.xml?rev=1042754&r1=1042753&r2=1042754&view=diff
>> ==============================================================================
>> --- openwebbeans/trunk/webbeans-jsf/src/main/resources/META-INF/faces-config.xml (original)
>> +++ openwebbeans/trunk/webbeans-jsf/src/main/resources/META-INF/faces-config.xml Mon Dec  6 18:19:24 2010
>> @@ -24,10 +24,6 @@ under the License.
>> 
>>    <name>org_apache_openwebbeans</name>
>> 
>> -    <factory>
>> -        <application-factory>org.apache.webbeans.jsf.OwbApplicationFactory</application-factory>
>> -    </factory>
>> -
>>    <application>
>>        <view-handler>org.apache.webbeans.jsf.ConversationAwareViewHandler</view-handler>
>>        <el-resolver>org.apache.webbeans.el.WebBeansELResolver</el-resolver>
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
>