> 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.
Right. It would be pretty frustrating and annoying if one had to choose
from a thousand different jars on the Woodstock site to get the one that
supports the target environment. With what is basically zero impact on
non-Facelets users, it makes more sense (to me) to just put the XML file
in and move on. The danger there, though, is that every ViewHandler
author will want support for his handler in the library, which makes
maintenance on your part more difficult, so I can see and acknowledge
the slippery slope this presents. :)
> 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.
Fair enough. You can't just start throwing features in willy nilly
because some semi-anonymous poster asked for something. :)
-----
Jason Lee, SCJP
Senior Software Engineer
http://www.iec-okc.com