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

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(a)gmail.com > <mailto:clarity.training@gmail.com>> wrote: > > +1. This should definitely be fixed. > > > david > > 2010/2/3 Dan Allen <dan.j.allen(a)gmail.com > <mailto:dan.j.allen@gmail.com>> > > > On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 11:07 AM, Jason Lee > <jason(a)steeplesoft.com <mailto:jason@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&... > < > http://archives.java.sun.com/cgi-bin/wa?A1=ind0904&L=JSR-314-OPEN&... > > > > (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@horstmann.com