On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 5:07 PM, Ken Paulsen <Ken.Paulsen_at_sun.com> wrote:
>
> Does this present any problem as JSFT is declaring its ViewHandler in
> its faces-config.xml?
That's a very good point. I may need to provide a doctored copy of
the JAR until the questions below are answered.
> I would like to talk about repackaging JSFT. Instead of 1 jar file for
> everything, I'm thinking something along these lines:
>
> * jsftemplating-component-only.jar
> - Includes JSFT w/ only the h:/f: factories
> - faces-config.xml w/o the ViewHandler (maybe no faces-config at all?
> that would eliminate pageSession, though)
>
> * jsftemplating.jar
> - Includes JSFT runtime w/ only the h:/f: factories
> - includes faces-config.xml file as it is today
How averse are you to requiring that JSFTemplating users manually add
the ViewHandler to their faces-config.xml. I know that's a departure
from how it works now, but it's how Facelets works (fwiw) and would
simplify the source tree and build process.
> * woodstockFactories.jar
> - Just contains the factories
>
> * jMakiFactories.jar
> - Just contains the factories
These are all pretty small, iirc, so size shouldn't be a problem, and
they shouldn't pose any dependency issues unless someone tries to use
the classes, right? Would it hurt anything to put them into what
JAR(s) comes out of the discussion above?
> * scalesFactories.jar
> (or does scales already include this?)
Currently, some of the Scales components have Factories defined, but
not all do. I either need to refresh that part or, maybe, just rely
on the taglib.xml support. Either way, I'll provide these, so JSFT
doesn't need to.
> What do you think? Perhaps this is a good topic for next Tuesday's JSFT
> meeting.
Sounds like a good plan, unless, of course, we get it figured out
before then. :P
--
Jason Lee, SCJP
Software Architect -- Objectstream, Inc.
Mojarra and Mojarra Scales Dev Team
https://mojarra.dev.java.net
https://scales.dev.java.net
http://blogs.steeplesoft.com