[jsr-314-open] Slashes in resource library names?

[Cay Horstmann]

It's at 
https://javaserverfaces-spec-public.dev.java.net/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=740. 
What a mess!

At least it paves the way towards handling hierarchical library names in 
the future, should you choose to do so.

On 02/03/2010 09:12 AM, Dan Allen wrote:
> Cay, could you organize your comments into a spec issue?
>
> Thx,
>
> -Dan
>
> On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 11:18 AM, David Geary <clarity.training at gmail.com
> <mailto:clarity.training at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     +1. This should definitely be fixed.
>
>
>     david
>
>     2010/2/3 Dan Allen <dan.j.allen at gmail.com
>     <mailto:dan.j.allen at gmail.com>>
>
>         On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 11:07 AM, Jason Lee
>         <jason at steeplesoft.com <mailto:jason at steeplesoft.com>> wrote:
>
>             On 2/1/10 9:13 AM, Kito Mann wrote:
>>             There was a discussion about nested resource library names
>>             last year. I would say to search the archives, but I don't
>>             know if that's possible. Anyway, here was the outcome:
>>
>>                 Ed:
>>
>>                 Yes, you are correct that the resource naming scheme
>>                 prevents nested
>>                 resource libraries. Nested resource libraries were not
>>                 on the list of
>>                 requirements when we designed this feature back in
>>                 November of 2007.  We
>>                 will not accept this requirement change at this point.
>>
>>
>>             Dan:
>>
>>             So the spec needs to at least be clear that it's not
>>             permitted and suggest the alternative. Several people
>>             reading it didn't understand what to do in this case.
>>
>>             IMHO, it's a shame that we can't use the nested structure.
>>             Seems like a pretty obvious convention instead of
>>             configuration thing. I don't know how that got missed in
>>             the design process.
>             It would be interesting to find out why that was left out.
>             Was it simply an oversight, or are there technical reasons
>             for disallowing that? On the surface, it sounds like it
>             would be easy to implement and support, but I've not thought
>             too deeply on the topic.  Maybe that's something we should
>             fix, if we can, for 2.1.
>
>
>         We never got to the bottom of why this was left out, but I think
>         there was a general agreement that it should be fixed. Let's
>         discuss when and get an issue report filed.
>
>         Here is the (not-so-pretty) link to the original discussion:
>
>         http://archives.java.sun.com/cgi-bin/wa?A1=ind0904&L=JSR-314-OPEN&X=3E023C7A0F922F9C1F#16
>         <http://archives.java.sun.com/cgi-bin/wa?A1=ind0904&L=JSR-314-OPEN&X=3E023C7A0F922F9C1F#16>
>
>         (that reminds me I have some leaning on the JCP PMO to get to).
>
>         -Dan
>
>         --
>         Dan Allen
>         Senior Software Engineer, Red Hat | Author of Seam in Action
>         Registered Linux User #231597
>
>         http://mojavelinuxcom <http://mojavelinux.com>
>         http://mojavelinux.com/seaminaction
>         http://www.google.com/profiles/dan.j.allen
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Dan Allen
> Senior Software Engineer, Red Hat | Author of Seam in Action
> Registered Linux User #231597
>
> http://mojavelinux.com
> http://mojavelinux.com/seaminaction
> http://www.google.com/profiles/dan.j.allen


-- 

Cay S. Horstmann | http://horstmann.com | mailto:cay at horstmann.com