Just so you know, make sure to stay away from the MultiNavigationHandler if you do this. Using multinavigationhandler will break compatability with JSF1.2 - and a few of the other new APIs as well (most can be avoided if you use conditional registration). But anything you need to register in faces-config.xml will be unavoidably included and may cause ClassDefNotFound errors and the like.
No problem in that case.
If people are able to use weld on their project, they can probably also upgrade JSF. Besides that, JSF 1.2 should be banned from this world asap anyway ;-)
On Dec 2, 2010, at 12:40 PM, Pete Muir wrote:
> Hi Paul
> Sorry, wasn't clear. JSF is completely optional in Weld, you don't need the JSF API on your classpath to use Weld.
> We do provide optional JSF support inside the jar. Currently this is compiled against JSF 1.2 for maximum compatibility. I want to change this to JSF 2 to (more simply) resolve a bug in our JSF support. So the question is, does anyone object to dropping JSF 1.2 support.
> On 2 Dec 2010, at 11:38, Paul Bakker wrote:
>> There a quite a few scenarios where weld without JSF make sense:
>> -alternative web framework (e.g. wicket)
>> -a service only project (e.g. only JAX-RS)
>> -weld SE
>> It would be strange to pull in JSF on those kind of projects. On the other hand it's all alternative usage of weld, and I'm not sure that's important enough to stop us from doing this.
>> On Dec 2, 2010, at 12:30 PM, Pete Muir wrote:
>>> I am considering compiling Weld against the JSF 2 API. As both JBoss AS and GlassFish use JSF 2, I don't see any problems there, but wanted to see if anyone would object who is using Tomcat, Jetty or GAE?
>>> weld-dev mailing list
>> Op dit e-mail bericht is de disclaimer van Info Support van toepassing, zie http://www.infosupport.com/disclaimer
weld-dev mailing list