1:31 p.m.
Ever since we switched from MyFaces to Mojarra I've incurred the wrath
of MyFaces fans. Regardless of the relative quality of each
implementation, we have stuck with Mojarra because it always implements
the latest spec long before MyFaces. Now is no exception as Mojarra
fully supports JSF 2.2 and MyFaces 2.2 is incomplete.
However, with Multi-JSF in place, it is now trivial to ship both
implementations and allow the end user to choose which one they like best.
Any thoughts on this?
Stan
2:06 p.m.
As most technologies in Java EE are pluggable, it may set a precedence
for including multiple providers of other technologies. I would stick to
the one-implementation-per-technology rule, and not ship alternative
implementation. It shows our confidence and commitment to integrating
the best components into WildFly.
For MyFaces fans, one option is to create external (outside WildFly)
community effort to enable alternative JSF impl, maybe in the form of a
patch that can applied to WildFly. From a user's perspective, this
shouldn't be too different than shipping multiple impls, as both
approaches need some sort of configuration any way.
Just my 2 cents.
Cheng
On 7/8/13 1:31 PM, ssilvert(a)redhat.com wrote:
Ever since we switched from MyFaces to Mojarra I've incurred the
wrath
of MyFaces fans. Regardless of the relative quality of each
implementation, we have stuck with Mojarra because it always implements
the latest spec long before MyFaces. Now is no exception as Mojarra
fully supports JSF 2.2 and MyFaces 2.2 is incomplete.
However, with Multi-JSF in place, it is now trivial to ship both
implementations and allow the end user to choose which one they like best.
Any thoughts on this?
Stan
_______________________________________________
wildfly-dev mailing list
wildfly-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
2:50 p.m.
My personal opinion on this, is that we should not ship two implementations. I know this
is in the community, so it doesn't cause any issue with support as we don't have
to ship both in EAP. Having said that, if people in the community adopt MyFaces, and then
move to EAP, and its not there, its just another thing that causes a problem for adoption
of EAP.
Andy
----- Original Message -----
From: ssilvert(a)redhat.com
To: wildfly-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
Sent: Monday, July 8, 2013 11:31:27 AM
Subject: [wildfly-dev] Put MyFaces JSF into WildFly?
Ever since we switched from MyFaces to Mojarra I've incurred the
wrath
of MyFaces fans. Regardless of the relative quality of each
implementation, we have stuck with Mojarra because it always
implements
the latest spec long before MyFaces. Now is no exception as Mojarra
fully supports JSF 2.2 and MyFaces 2.2 is incomplete.
However, with Multi-JSF in place, it is now trivial to ship both
implementations and allow the end user to choose which one they like
best.
Any thoughts on this?
Stan
_______________________________________________
wildfly-dev mailing list
wildfly-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
3:18 p.m.
I should have added, I personally have no problem supporting both in EAP
if that's what we decide to do.
JSF is kind of unique in that for many years there have been two
well-accepted implementations. Both have their strengths and
weaknesses. Neither is going away.
So the upside of shipping both is that we would be the only ones
providing a choice. Developers could even defer their choice of
implementations until after their application is finished. Then pick
the one that runs best for them.
On 7/8/2013 2:50 PM, Andrig Miller wrote:
My personal opinion on this, is that we should not ship two
implementations. I know this is in the community, so it doesn't cause any issue with
support as we don't have to ship both in EAP. Having said that, if people in the
community adopt MyFaces, and then move to EAP, and its not there, its just another thing
that causes a problem for adoption of EAP.
Andy
----- Original Message -----
> From: ssilvert(a)redhat.com
> To: wildfly-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> Sent: Monday, July 8, 2013 11:31:27 AM
> Subject: [wildfly-dev] Put MyFaces JSF into WildFly?
>
> Ever since we switched from MyFaces to Mojarra I've incurred the
> wrath
> of MyFaces fans. Regardless of the relative quality of each
> implementation, we have stuck with Mojarra because it always
> implements
> the latest spec long before MyFaces. Now is no exception as Mojarra
> fully supports JSF 2.2 and MyFaces 2.2 is incomplete.
>
> However, with Multi-JSF in place, it is now trivial to ship both
> implementations and allow the end user to choose which one they like
> best.
>
> Any thoughts on this?
>
> Stan
> _______________________________________________
> wildfly-dev mailing list
> wildfly-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
>
4:24 p.m.
I think if we should see what product management thinks about his, in terms of the choice.
Do we have customers on EAP that are demanding this?
Andy
----- Original Message -----
From: ssilvert(a)redhat.com
To: "Andrig Miller" <anmiller(a)redhat.com>
Cc: wildfly-dev(a)lists.jboss.org, "Burr Sutter" <bsutter(a)redhat.com>,
"Brian Leathem" <bleathem(a)redhat.com>
Sent: Monday, July 8, 2013 1:18:29 PM
Subject: Re: [wildfly-dev] Put MyFaces JSF into WildFly?
I should have added, I personally have no problem supporting both in
EAP
if that's what we decide to do.
JSF is kind of unique in that for many years there have been two
well-accepted implementations. Both have their strengths and
weaknesses. Neither is going away.
So the upside of shipping both is that we would be the only ones
providing a choice. Developers could even defer their choice of
implementations until after their application is finished. Then pick
the one that runs best for them.
On 7/8/2013 2:50 PM, Andrig Miller wrote:
> My personal opinion on this, is that we should not ship two
> implementations. I know this is in the community, so it doesn't
> cause any issue with support as we don't have to ship both in EAP.
> Having said that, if people in the community adopt MyFaces, and
> then move to EAP, and its not there, its just another thing that
> causes a problem for adoption of EAP.
>
> Andy
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: ssilvert(a)redhat.com
>> To: wildfly-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>> Sent: Monday, July 8, 2013 11:31:27 AM
>> Subject: [wildfly-dev] Put MyFaces JSF into WildFly?
>>
>> Ever since we switched from MyFaces to Mojarra I've incurred the
>> wrath
>> of MyFaces fans. Regardless of the relative quality of each
>> implementation, we have stuck with Mojarra because it always
>> implements
>> the latest spec long before MyFaces. Now is no exception as
>> Mojarra
>> fully supports JSF 2.2 and MyFaces 2.2 is incomplete.
>>
>> However, with Multi-JSF in place, it is now trivial to ship both
>> implementations and allow the end user to choose which one they
>> like
>> best.
>>
>> Any thoughts on this?
>>
>> Stan
>> _______________________________________________
>> wildfly-dev mailing list
>> wildfly-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
>>
3:01 a.m.
It's not my domain of expertise but I hear about the subject from time
to time.
When polling people about this subject, people actually do like the
choice JBoss AS has offered in this area. Sometimes, a specific bug in
one impl is really problematic for a project and the ability to switch
has been a life saver.
So even if we don't "ship" with it, we should have it
"integratable" and
fully tested in our releases.
Emmanuel
On Mon 2013-07-08 16:24, Andrig Miller wrote:
I think if we should see what product management thinks about his, in
terms of the choice. Do we have customers on EAP that are demanding this?
Andy
----- Original Message -----
> From: ssilvert(a)redhat.com
> To: "Andrig Miller" <anmiller(a)redhat.com>
> Cc: wildfly-dev(a)lists.jboss.org, "Burr Sutter" <bsutter(a)redhat.com>,
"Brian Leathem" <bleathem(a)redhat.com>
> Sent: Monday, July 8, 2013 1:18:29 PM
> Subject: Re: [wildfly-dev] Put MyFaces JSF into WildFly?
>
> I should have added, I personally have no problem supporting both in
> EAP
> if that's what we decide to do.
>
> JSF is kind of unique in that for many years there have been two
> well-accepted implementations. Both have their strengths and
> weaknesses. Neither is going away.
>
> So the upside of shipping both is that we would be the only ones
> providing a choice. Developers could even defer their choice of
> implementations until after their application is finished. Then pick
> the one that runs best for them.
>
> On 7/8/2013 2:50 PM, Andrig Miller wrote:
> > My personal opinion on this, is that we should not ship two
> > implementations. I know this is in the community, so it doesn't
> > cause any issue with support as we don't have to ship both in EAP.
> > Having said that, if people in the community adopt MyFaces, and
> > then move to EAP, and its not there, its just another thing that
> > causes a problem for adoption of EAP.
> >
> > Andy
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: ssilvert(a)redhat.com
> >> To: wildfly-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> >> Sent: Monday, July 8, 2013 11:31:27 AM
> >> Subject: [wildfly-dev] Put MyFaces JSF into WildFly?
> >>
> >> Ever since we switched from MyFaces to Mojarra I've incurred the
> >> wrath
> >> of MyFaces fans. Regardless of the relative quality of each
> >> implementation, we have stuck with Mojarra because it always
> >> implements
> >> the latest spec long before MyFaces. Now is no exception as
> >> Mojarra
> >> fully supports JSF 2.2 and MyFaces 2.2 is incomplete.
> >>
> >> However, with Multi-JSF in place, it is now trivial to ship both
> >> implementations and allow the end user to choose which one they
> >> like
> >> best.
> >>
> >> Any thoughts on this?
> >>
> >> Stan
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> wildfly-dev mailing list
> >> wildfly-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
> >>
>
>
_______________________________________________
wildfly-dev mailing list
wildfly-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
5:20 p.m.
How much does it add to the download size?
On 7/8/13 12:31 PM, ssilvert(a)redhat.com wrote:
Ever since we switched from MyFaces to Mojarra I've incurred the
wrath
of MyFaces fans. Regardless of the relative quality of each
implementation, we have stuck with Mojarra because it always implements
the latest spec long before MyFaces. Now is no exception as Mojarra
fully supports JSF 2.2 and MyFaces 2.2 is incomplete.
However, with Multi-JSF in place, it is now trivial to ship both
implementations and allow the end user to choose which one they like best.
Any thoughts on this?
Stan
_______________________________________________
wildfly-dev mailing list
wildfly-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
--
Brian Stansberry
Principal Software Engineer
JBoss by Red Hat
5:37 p.m.
On 7/8/2013 5:20 PM, Brian Stansberry wrote:
How much does it add to the download size?
A little under 3 MB
On 7/8/13 12:31 PM, ssilvert(a)redhat.com wrote:
> Ever since we switched from MyFaces to Mojarra I've incurred the wrath
> of MyFaces fans. Regardless of the relative quality of each
> implementation, we have stuck with Mojarra because it always implements
> the latest spec long before MyFaces. Now is no exception as Mojarra
> fully supports JSF 2.2 and MyFaces 2.2 is incomplete.
>
> However, with Multi-JSF in place, it is now trivial to ship both
> implementations and allow the end user to choose which one they like best.
>
> Any thoughts on this?
>
> Stan
> _______________________________________________
> wildfly-dev mailing list
> wildfly-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev
>
3942
days inactive
3943
days old
7 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Andrig Miller -
Brian Stansberry -
Cheng Fang -
Emmanuel Bernard -
ssilvert＠redhat.com