Jason Lee wrote:
On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 5:07 PM, Ken Paulsen <Ken.Paulsen@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.
Q: Can you provide 2 view handler declarations in the same
faces-config.xml file?
I'm not 100% against it, but I would rather not for the same reason you
don't want to make your users add a phase listener for your
components. It should "just work".
* 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?
You mean as is done today? No it doesn't hurt much... they are small.
I thought the difference would mostly be psychological. This would
allow people to include only the ones they want, and would demonstrate
how to add support for JSFT so that this content could be moved to the
correct place (the component libraries themselves). And in some cases,
size does matter... so cutting out 50K (or maybe it's more? I don't
know), may be worth while.
* 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.
That's good... I think that's the correct approach.
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
Yep... perhaps we can also talk about better taglib.xml support...
naming the "handlers" that facelets declares. Perhaps we can do
something about those...
Ken