Jason Lee wrote:
> With this change, then, the standard JSF and JSP files (.tld,
> faces-config.xml) will be generated by passing in one factory to the
> processor, and the Facelets support file (webuijsf.taglib.xml) will be
> generated in a second instantiation of the processor, either in the same
> task or a different one? What if one were able to pass in a list of
> factories to apt, and do everything in one pass? I'm not sure I see the
> value in making the Facelets support generation a separate tasks. IMO,
> the file should awalys be generated (thus generating should be made as
> painless as possible). If the end user isn't using Facelets, there is
> no run-time dependency on Facelets jars; there is only 21.4KB of disk
> space "wasted."
I was assuming that one would want to build "either - or": either a
standard JSF library, or a library that works with Facelets. It sounds
like you would prefer that there be just a single library, which can
work in either a JSP environment or a Facelets environment. I take your
point about efficiency.
Ultimately, the decision about how best to integrate Woodstock with
Facelets is one of policy as well engineering. There is an architecture
group that meets to discuss such matters, I'll ask them for their input.
// Gregory