[jsr-314-open] [jsf2next] PROJECT_STAGE system property configuration

[Lincoln Baxter, III]

I see your point, agreed. I think what I was really going for was
extendability. But, I like the idea of pushing this into the container, plus
what's been asked for on the JCP forums will go a long way to achieving that
goal of extendability (User ProjectStages). I do have one question about
that though:

I've been hearing "appserver", but would the "Java EE Umbrella Spec" be
enough to bring this behavior to servlet containers? The last thing we want
is to create another thing that appservers provide, that servlet containers
do not. We still need ProjectStage to make it into the Servlet spec,
explicitly, in order to bridge that gap, right? Is that an accurate
assumption?

--Lincoln

On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 7:25 PM, Jim Driscoll <Jim.Driscoll at sun.com> wrote:

>
>
> On 1/6/10 2:57 PM, Lincoln Baxter, III wrote:
>
>> I'd like to understand a little more about the objections to runtime
>> modification. I agree in that I don't think it would add much value, but
>> is the opposition of a technical difficulty or practical/philosophical
>> nature? I'd like to learn why people feel this way. Is it more of "it
>> goes against the intentended usage of ProjectStage" or more of "it would
>> be too hard for too little value?" Or something else?
>>
>> Just for my benefit. Thanks!
>>
>
> I believe it's more a matter of "too hard for too little value".  Not that
> it's all *that* hard (AFAIK) - but it's annoying enough of a change that I'd
> like to see at least one compelling usecase before supporting it.  It also
> may have a (slight) overhead cost, which in Production stage is a good
> argument against it.
>
>
> Jim
>



-- 
Lincoln Baxter, III
http://ocpsoft.com
http://scrumshark.com
"Keep it Simple"
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/jsr-314-open-mirror/attachments/20100107/0f7786da/attachment.html