Hi guys, I totally agree with the suggested changes of Werner - a +1 from me. In the current version of the document, Werner says this should work only in development time - but I think this should work always, Werner agreed and he will adapt the document in this regard. Why did Werner first think this should work only during development time? We first agreed that basic configuration changes are easily doable, and can work both during development and production time. However, he was specifically referring to more sophisticated behaviour like if you drop a managed bean configuration, then the managed bean instance should also be dropped. Werner and me then agreed that the framework listening to such configuration changes would implement this, and that this framework would then decide if and how it wants to act in the diverse development modes. best regards, Martin On 3/19/10, Werner Punz <werner.punz(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > Ok guys I posted an initial proposal in issue > > https://javaserverfaces-spec-public.dev.java.net/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=774 > > you also can download the proposal directly from > > http://people.apache.org/~werpu/Proposal%20Configuration.pdf<http://pe... > > It is just a proposal for 2 extension points first an extension point which > gives read and write access to the configuration > (although it is up to the implementation whether the right access is granted > and in which state of the application) > Secondly system events all extensions and also the implementation must use > as extension point > to get configuration write and read behavior in. This notification system > uses the existing system events to perform that > but more details in the PDF. > > Btw. can someone please close > https://javaserverfaces-spec-public.dev.java.net/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7... > I cannot do it, it is oviously now covered by the proposal and the > unload itself is part of a connecting extension framework or the respective > implementation. > > Werner > > > On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 8:49 PM, Dan Allen <dan.j.allen(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > >> On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 12:07 PM, Martin Marinschek < >> mmarinschek(a)apache.org&gt; wrote: >> >>> Hi guys, >>> >>> just so that I can add my 2cents as well: I believe it would be a >>> valuable addition to JSF if we had some standardized hooks into the >>> configuration management - that was really missing from the beginning. >>> >>> I believe it was also discussed from early on, but always delayed to a >>> later version. >>> >> >> That later version needs to be JSF 2.1. Time to make it happen :) >> >> -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 >> > -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces