Hi,
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 8:36 PM, Frank Caputo <frank_at_frankcaputo.de> wrote:
> Will we deprecate the possibility to replace whole views in contracts? If not, I’m OK with it.
I personally have not argued for that and it would be OK for me if
that possibility remains. I do like to see it documented a bit better.
There are at least 2 places in the spec that could at least "casually"
mention that this is possible.
The previous discussions about resource contracts did hint if I
remember correctly that a more strict contract definition would be
investigated. Currently it's just a directory with files. Any plans
there?
> I did not yet understand 100%, what will be in the views folder? Only views or templates or includes or simply all of them? If it is the latter, I’d propose to call it facelets.
The proposal asked for only top-level views to be there. The idea was
as analogy of sorts to /resources, which also doesn't contain all
kinds of Facelets.
Kind regards,
Arjan