>>>> On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 13:34:28 -0500, Kito Mann <kito.mann_at_virtua.com> said:
KM> * Section 10.1.3 should explain (like section 2.7) that "resource library
KM> contracts" are special resource libraries that inherit all of the resource
KM> library features. Since 10.1.3 doesn't reference 2.7, this is unclear.
While I don't want to say they inherit all of the features of resource
libraries, I have added this text:
"The feature is built on top ofthe resource library facility described
in section 2.6.1.4 "Libraries of Localized and Versioned Resources".
KM> * Is there a normative statement about what constitues a resource library
KM> contract name? This would help, especially for the <resource-contracts>
KM> element in faces-config.xml.
I added this to 11.4.2.1:
"The value of the <contracts> element is a comma separated list of
resource library contract names. A resource library contract name is
the name of a directory within the contracts directory of the web app
root, or the contracts directory within the META-INF/contracts JAR
entry.
The documentation in the XSD is already sufficient.
KM> * Section 10.1.3.1 doesn't show the javax.faces.contract.xml file.
That example doesn't show the "JAR entry discovery" case. The marker
file is referenced in the normative section where the discovery of
resource library contracts is described. This is the first paragraph of
2.7 Resource Library Contracts.
KM> * Now that I see it in action, I'm not a fan of the term "contracts" here.
KM> When I see META-INF/contracts, it's not as obvious as META-INF/resources. I
KM> don't have an alternative yet, but the words "swappable" or "dynamic" come
KM> to mind.
Well, we had the term "multi-template" but I don't want to use that term
out of respect to the feature's originator, and former JSF Volunteer
Group member, Lamine Ba. If we don't use it, that means he can still
use it for his other projects, which is quite fine with me.
Ed
--
| edward.burns_at_oracle.com | office: +1 407 458 0017
| homepage: | http://ridingthecrest.com/