On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 9:21 AM, Dan Allen <email@example.com
> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 7:59 AM, Clint Popetz <firstname.lastname@example.org
>> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 6:26 AM, Pete Muir <email@example.com
>> > On 29 Apr 2009, at 07:10, Dan Allen wrote:
>> >> Instead of thinking of replacing the class 1-for-1, think if perhaps
>> >> there
>> >> is base functionality that would be relevant for any environment and
>> >> specific functionality for a framework like JSF. Then, you can create a
>> >> generic class and then specialize it using a deployment type and
>> >> @Specializes. Two examples of this so far are
>> >> StatusMessages/FacesStatusMessages and Expressions/FacesExpressions. I
>> >> believe that Selector is another candidate for this. There is nothing
>> >> specific to JSF about a selector, but it just happens to be in the JSF
>> >> package in Seam 2.1.
>> I'm glad to see that this type of consideration is being given to
>> making Seam3 independent of view layer choice. However, I want to
>> point out that using a deployment type and @Specializes would seem to
>> place us in the same situation as Seam 2.x with respect to the view
>> layers co-existing in the same deployment, which
was meant to address.
>> In other words, I'd rather that the choice of the StatusMessages bean
>> that will be activated isn't based on deployment type, but rather is
>> chosen at runtime based on the type of request, using the pattern in
>> the patch for the above jira issue. Deployment types would of course
>> still be used to choose which implementations of things like
>> StatusMessages are available.
>> I'd be willing to do the work to make that happen, if it can be
>> coordinated in such a way that I'm not getting in your way.
> Ah, good thinking. I was thinking too narrowly. I'm always open to
> collaboration, and I work well with diff and patch...so if there is a patch
> you would like to share with me (pre-commit) I would be glad to test it out
> and discuss with you possible next steps.