>>>>> On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 15:16:20 -0500, Andy Schwartz <andy.schwartz(a)oracle.com&gt; said: >>>>> AS> https://javaserverfaces-spec-public.dev.java.net/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=499 AS> Can we add this to the MR list? Yes, but I'd like to get agreement that we don't care about the Servlet EG's opinion on the VM-wide nature of system properties.

In fact, I'm on the phone with Bill Shannon, Roberto Chinnici, Rajiv Mordani, and the Sun EE architects right now for our weekly meeting. I have requested a timeslot to bring this up (again) there. I'm glad I'm on the phone because otherwise, I might get tomatoes thrown in my face.

We should also probably decide and state that configuration defined in web.xml will override the system property.. or visa versa. Though I think the former allows more fine grained control. Lincoln Baxter's Droid http://ocpsoft.com http://scrumshark.com Keep it simple. On Jan 19, 2010 5:03 PM, "Andy Schwartz" <andy.schwartz(a)oracle.com&gt; wrote: Ed Burns wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 15:16:20 -0500, Andy Schwartz <andy.schwartz@oracl... Okay, thanks for the update Ed.  I wasn't aware that there had been push back from the Servlet EG on this. Personally I don't understand the nature of the objection.  In some case fine-grained (application-specific) control is desired.  We have addressed this case via the context parameter.  There seems to be general agreement in our EG that a system-level property would also be beneficial and in particular would improve the ease of use of this feature for development-time scenarios (ie. no need for a web.xml or JNDI config).  Not sure why we need to choose one approach vs. the other.  Both serve a purpose. > In fact, I'm on the phone with Bill Shannon, Roberto Chinnici, Rajiv > > Mordani, and the Sun EE a... Wow, sounds harsh.  I guess I am missing why this is so controversial. In any case, thanks for raising this (again). Andy

On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 5:03 PM, Andy Schwartz <andy.schwartz(a)oracle.com&gt;wrote: > Ed Burns wrote: > >> On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 15:16:20 -0500, Andy Schwartz < >>>>>>> andy.schwartz(a)oracle.com&gt; said: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >> AS> >> https://javaserverfaces-spec-public.dev.java.net/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=499 >> >> AS> Can we add this to the MR list? >> >> Yes, but I'd like to get agreement that we don't care about the Servlet >> EG's opinion on the VM-wide nature of system properties. >> >> > > Okay, thanks for the update Ed. I wasn't aware that there had been push > back from the Servlet EG on this. > > Personally I don't understand the nature of the objection. In some case > fine-grained (application-specific) control is desired. We have addressed > this case via the context parameter. There seems to be general agreement in > our EG that a system-level property would also be beneficial and in > particular would improve the ease of use of this feature for > development-time scenarios (ie. no need for a web.xml or JNDI config). Not > sure why we need to choose one approach vs. the other. Both serve a > purpose. > The system property seems like a very reasonable option to me. It matches well with "starting the server in debug mode" and I could even see the two being tied together in an IDE server control (tangential to this decision, of course). Just like with debug mode, this should be something that can be controlled without a change to application code. We need to make sure we are clear whether the context parameter overrides the system property, or vice versa. I would think the system property would take precedence, but I'm open to counter arguments. -Dan -- 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

For the implementations, it might be a good idea to borrow the log message the Wicket uses when running in development mode. ******************************************************************** *** WARNING: JavaServer Faces is running in DEVELOPMENT mode.    *** ***                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^          *** *** Do NOT deploy to your live server(s) without changing this.  *** *** See Application#getProjectStage() for more information.      *** ******************************************************************** (Of course, if we eventually settle on a platform-wide flag, then the message can be updated appropriately). Just something I noticed while working on a Wicket-related issue in Weld. -Dan On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 12:38 AM, Lincoln Baxter, III <lincolnbaxter(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > > We need to make sure we are clear whether the context parameter overrides > the system property, or vice versa. I would think the system property would > take precedence, but I'm open to counter arguments. > > Definitely need to flush out the solution of least surprise. I think that > people will expect the system property to override web.xml - This would > allow production servers to set the property and ensure that no matter what > is deployed (accidents occur), they are *always* running in Production stage > mode. > > At first thought, allowing web.xml to override the system property seems > to allow greater flexibility, but in fact, it provides equal flexibility > because you could simply leave your development stages at "Development" or > whatever.. in web.xml, then disable the system-property when needed, > allowing the same flexibility (as an inverse operation.) > > I am in favor of the System property overriding web.xml. I don't think it > makes sense otherwise. > > --LB > > > On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 6:32 PM, Dan Allen <dan.j.allen(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 5:03 PM, Andy Schwartz <andy.schwartz(a)oracle.com&gt; >> wrote: >>> >>> Ed Burns wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 15:16:20 -0500, Andy Schwartz >>>>>>>>> <andy.schwartz(a)oracle.com&gt; said: >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> AS> >>>> https://javaserverfaces-spec-public.dev.java.net/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=499 >>>> >>>> AS> Can we add this to the MR list? >>>> >>>> Yes, but I'd like to get agreement that we don't care about the Servlet >>>> EG's opinion on the VM-wide nature of system properties. >>>> >>> >>> Okay, thanks for the update Ed.  I wasn't aware that there had been push >>> back from the Servlet EG on this. >>> >>> Personally I don't understand the nature of the objection.  In some case >>> fine-grained (application-specific) control is desired.  We have addressed >>> this case via the context parameter.  There seems to be general agreement in >>> our EG that a system-level property would also be beneficial and in >>> particular would improve the ease of use of this feature for >>> development-time scenarios (ie. no need for a web.xml or JNDI config).  Not >>> sure why we need to choose one approach vs. the other.  Both serve a >>> purpose. >> >> The system property seems like a very reasonable option to me. It matches >> well with "starting the server in debug mode" and I could even see the two >> being tied together in an IDE server control (tangential to this decision, >> of course). Just like with debug mode, this should be something that can be >> controlled without a change to application code. >> >> We need to make sure we are clear whether the context parameter overrides >> the system property, or vice versa. I would think the system property would >> take precedence, but I'm open to counter arguments. >> >> -Dan >> >> -- >> 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 > > > > -- > Lincoln Baxter, III > http://ocpsoft.com > http://scrumshark.com > "Keep it Simple" -- 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

I'm in favor of the system-wide nature. It only makes sense. Why would you have some apps in production mode and others in development?