On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 3:06 AM, Ken Paulsen <Ken.Paulsen_at_sun.com> wrote:
> Anyway, wrt, # of jar files... if we have the standard (h:/f:) components
> supported in the core jar + facelets taglib.xml support. Then they only
> need 1 jar. If they want to add woodstock or other component libraries,
> they can either: 1) add a facelets taglib.xml (which is typically already
> done by virtue of using the component library); or 2) add a 2nd jar file w/
> factories. In addition to disk space, factories get loaded into memory
> (they're small)... but there's no need to have support for comonents you
> know you'll never use.
That's a good point. I just thought I'd chime in on that part, but I
don't think either way you choose will cause me any heartburn. :)
> Supporting interoperability with JSP and Facelets is a must have. If
> pulling out the viewhandler from the jsft.jar file means it is difficult to
> define multiple view handlers (or even confusing), I don't want to do that.
> I think there are 2 types of users that use JSFT: page authors; and
> component authors. If you're a page author, you need the ViewHandler. If
> you're a component author, you should know what you're doing well enough to
> do the right thing. There's a 3rd (smaller) group that might want
> pageSession, fileStreamer, etc... if that group gets bigger I might change
> my opinion on where the ViewHandler declaration belongs.
Fair enough. To recap, if I recall things correctly, that would leave
us with 2 jars? One stripped down for component authors (like me) and
either "full" or maybe just a supplemental jar for page authors?
> The "handlers" I referred to are the Facelets taglib.xml "handler-class"
> references. Such as:
OK. I have no experience with those, so I have no real opinion. :)
--
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