5:59 p.m.
It's just that I find it more intuitively that I have JSF enabled on my project and
then anything that needs to support that does
if JSF.version > 1.2 then something.
Instead of if facet.equals(JSF1_2) or facet.equals(JSF_2) then something
and then be in the situation that when JSF 3 or JSF 2.1 comes out having to update all the
plugins that has that assumption.
/max
I'm thinking that it will get very complicated quickly if each
Facet supports many versions of each EE spec, which is why I was leaning toward having,
essentially, a (JSF2Facet, Servlet3Facet,... etc). The plugins are what will support
multiple versions.
I think it would be misleading if we have a FacesFacet that works for JSF2 but not for
JSF1.2 - certain features will only be available in a JSF2 environment, whereas others
will work on both.
This is why I think the best place to address those differences is in the plugin itself,
where choices can be made based on JSF version. Faces2Facet may extend or implement the
same interface as Faces12Facet.
Or do you think we should go with the approach of having one ubiquitous facet for each EE
technology, which under the covers simply **does nothing** if an attempt to use a
non-supported feature is made. This could still be handled in the plugin by
SpecFacet.getVersion(), but I tend to like explicit separation of concerns. I see this
getting messy.
What are your thoughts?
~Lincoln
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 6:16 AM, Max Rydahl Andersen <max.andersen(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
> hence why I am considering moving the plugins into a separate project that may
depend on many different EE facet versions, yes. So the facets will be defined by EE
version, but the plugins themselves will take all available facets into account.
okey - then i'm just still not following why the version is in the package name when
the plugin and I assume the facet it self supports multiple versions ?
i.e. I would assume that the version number is a *property* of the facet, not the actual
id of the facet it self.
/max
>
> ~Lincoln
>
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Max Rydahl Andersen
<max.andersen(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> shouldn't that be org.jboss.seam.forge.spec.javaee ?
>
> i.e. when javaee7 I would assume not all plugins is to be duplicated ?
>
> /max
>
> On Apr 12, 2011, at 17:15, Lincoln Baxter, III wrote:
>
> > FYI. To make the package naming more appropriate going forward, I've
updated the base package for the Java EE 6 plugins from:
> >
> > org.jboss.seam.forge.spec --to-> org.jboss.seam.forge.spec.javaee6
> > This takes into account that there will be other versions of Java EE than just
EE 6 going forward. I am also considering moving the plugins themsleves out of this
project, and making this a "Facet only" API.
> >
> > --
> > Lincoln Baxter, III
> > http://ocpsoft.com
> > http://scrumshark.com
> > "Keep it Simple"
> > _______________________________________________
> > forge-dev mailing list
> > forge-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev
>
> /max
> http://about.me/maxandersen
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> forge-dev mailing list
> forge-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/forge-dev
>
>
>
> --
> Lincoln Baxter, III
> http://ocpsoft.com
> http://scrumshark.com
> "Keep it Simple"
/max
http://about.me/maxandersen
--
Lincoln Baxter, III
http://ocpsoft.com
http://scrumshark.com
"Keep it Simple"
/max
http://about.me/maxandersen