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. Paul On Dec 2, 2010, at 12:30 PM, Pete Muir wrote: > All > > 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? > > Thanks > _______________________________________________ > weld-dev mailing list > weld-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/weld-dev Op dit e-mail bericht is de disclaimer van Info Support van toepassing, zie http://www.infosupport.com/disclaimer

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 ;-) Paul 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. > > pete > > 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. >> >> Paul >> >> >> On Dec 2, 2010, at 12:30 PM, Pete Muir wrote: >> >>> All >>> >>> 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? >>> >>> Thanks >>> _______________________________________________ >>> weld-dev mailing list >>> weld-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/weld-dev >> >> >> Op dit e-mail bericht is de disclaimer van Info Support van toepassing, zie http://www.infosupport.com/disclaimer > _______________________________________________ weld-dev mailing list weld-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/weld-dev

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. On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 6:44 AM, Paul Bakker <paulb(a)infosupport.com&gt; wrote: 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 ;-) Paul 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. > > pete > > 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. >> >> Paul >> >> >> On Dec 2, 2010, at 12:30 PM, Pete Muir wrote: >> >>> All >>> >>> 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? >>> >>> Thanks >>> _______________________________________________ >>> weld-dev mailing list >>> weld-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/weld-dev >> >> >> Op dit e-mail bericht is de disclaimer van Info Support van toepassing, zie http://www.infosupport.com/disclaimer > _______________________________________________ weld-dev mailing list weld-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/weld-dev -- Lincoln Baxter, III http://ocpsoft.com http://scrumshark.com "Keep it Simple"

On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 10:28 AM, Pete Muir <pmuir(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > > AFACIT this will really force Tomcat etc. users to use JSF2... > Yep. I think this is a matter of us leaving the fence and deciding that we are going to advocate the EE 6 technology stack as a baseline. We are recommending a new programming model, after all, so I think it's consistent to select the optimal compliments. I've was thinking along the same lines for Seam Servlet...we should really be assuming we have Servlet 3, or at the very least the Servlet-CDI integration (which Weld Servlet patches in). Otherwise, we sort of look hesitant in our message to adopt EE 6. So I'm all for it.

-Dan -- Dan Allen Principal 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 _______________________________________________ weld-dev mailing list weld-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/weld-dev

On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 11:02 AM, Dan Allen <dan.j.allen(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 10:28 AM, Pete Muir <pmuir(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >> >> AFACIT this will really force Tomcat etc. users to use JSF2... >> > > Yep. I think this is a matter of us leaving the fence and deciding that we > are going to advocate the EE 6 technology stack as a baseline. We are > recommending a new programming model, after all, so I think it's consistent > to select the optimal compliments. I've was thinking along the same lines > for Seam Servlet...we should really be assuming we have Servlet 3, or at the > very least the Servlet-CDI integration (which Weld Servlet patches in). > Otherwise, we sort of look hesitant in our message to adopt EE 6. So I'm all > for it. Yuck. -Clint (Loves CDI, uses wicket, deploys a large app on a cluster of 30 tomcat instances, doesn't want a needless jsf dependency.) > -Dan > > -- > Dan Allen > Principal 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 > > _______________________________________________ > weld-dev mailing list > weld-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/weld-dev > -- Clint Popetz http://42lines.net Scalable Web Application Development