Ok, that's fine. I figured if it were something easy, it could be useful, but there's no need to do something that people aren't demanding <br><br>This has already been filed here:<br><a href="https://javaserverfaces-spec-public.dev.java.net/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=499" target="_blank">https://javaserverfaces-spec-public.dev.java.net/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=499</a><br>
<br>--Lincoln<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 11:14 PM, Ed Burns <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Ed.Burns@sun.com">EdBurns@sun.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
>>>>> On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 11:21:50 -0800, Jim Driscoll <Jim.Driscoll@Sun.COM> said:<br>
<div class="im"><br>
JD> On 1/3/10 12:45 PM, Lincoln Baxter, III wrote:<br>
>> I'd like to revisit this for JSF2.1 -<br>
>> <a href="https://javaserverfaces-spec-public.dev.java.net/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=499" target="_blank">https://javaserverfaces-spec-public.dev.java.net/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=499</a><br>
>><br>
>> Project stage is something that needs to be configurable without<br>
>> modifying the underlying WAR (and while JNDI support is provided, it<br>
>> requires container configuration, admittedly not a huge downside.)<br>
>> However, for those who do not primarily use JNDI for configuration, a<br>
>> -D system property makes a lot of sense.<br>
<br>
</div>JD> That sounds like something that could be handy - please file an RFE.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
>> I'd also like to propose one other enhancement, which is runtime<br>
>> configuration of the PROJECT_STAGE through an exposed API. This is<br>
>> something that I think should be able to turn on and off while the<br>
>> server is running (For the same reason it must be possible to enable<br>
>> or disable debug logging or auditing at runtime.)<br>
<br>
</div>JD> That has performance implications - for instance, we do some setup of<br>
JD> the application based on project stage that would be awkward to change<br>
JD> on the fly. Offhand, I'm not in favor of this change, since that<br>
JD> complicates the runtime behavior for what must be a rather small corner<br>
JD> case. If you have a compelling use case, you might change my mind, but<br>
JD> keep in mind that implementing this is not as simple as it may appear at<br>
JD> first blush.<br>
<br>
I also am not in favor of this change. We make a lot of assumptions<br>
about the immutability of the ProjectStage value at runtime.<br>
<br>
Ed<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
--<br>
| <a href="mailto:ed.burns@sun.com">ed.burns@sun.com</a> | office: 408 884 9519 OR x31640<br>
| homepage: | <a href="http://ridingthecrest.com/" target="_blank">http://ridingthecrest.com/</a><br>
</font></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Lincoln Baxter, III<br><a href="http://ocpsoft.com">http://ocpsoft.com</a><br><a href="http://scrumshark.com">http://scrumshark.com</a><br>"Keep it Simple"<br>