[jsr-314-open] [695-ccNamespace] CONDITIONALLY CLOSED (was: Re: [JSF 2.1 NEW] composite component namespace simplification)

[David Geary]

Thanks, Ed. I was going to file this later today, but you beat me to it!

2009/12/11 Ed Burns <Ed.Burns at sun.com>

> >>>>> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 14:35:22 -0500, Kito Mann <kito.mann at virtua.com>
> said:
>
> KM> I like this idea... For a long time I've thought it was silly to use a
> KM> full-blown URL when it isn't necessary; I've been using URNs for my own
> KM> namespaces for a while.
>
> KM> At any rate, the main issue here is consistency with the rest of Java
> EE --
> KM> we should be careful here.
>
> >>>>> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 13:04:17 -0600, Jason Lee <jason at steeplesoft.com>
> said:
>
> JL> On 12/11/09 12:49 PM, Dan Allen wrote:
> >> My second choice is (a), so if I lose on (c), I'll be happy with (a)
> >> too. I think that (b) is just too vague.
> JL> My preference is a, c, then b.
>
> a) jsf:cc:whatevername
> b) cc:whatevername
> c) jsfcc:whatevername
>
> This issue has been discussed thoroughly and the consensus rests on (a).
> I also favor (a).  I have filed [1].
>
> I'm marking it conditionally closed here pending the result of a "heads
> up" email to get feedback from the rest of JavaEE.
>
> Finally, we can't make this change in the very next release of the spec
> because the very next release will only contain very simple spec
> changes.  However, there's nothing stoping implementors from doing it.
>
> Ed
>
>
> [1]
> https://javaserverfaces-spec-public.dev.java.net/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=695
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/jsr-314-open-mirror/attachments/20091211/7e958fee/attachment.html