[jsfunit-dev] XML marshalling

[Stan Silvert]

Dennis Byrne wrote:
> I think we agree then that there *has* to be a common model for XML 
> based and annotation based configuration details.  Similar to how the 
> AnnonationConfiguration extends Configuration in hibernate 3. 
> 
> Unfortunately there is no way to rip out clogging.  Myfaces and Digester 
> both have binary dependencies on it.  I agree that logging is not needed 
> by us - just let it rip.  I felt the same about performance when I wrote 
> the code. 
> 
> I thought about using JAXB as an alternative also but that only covers 
> JSF 1.2 conf files (JAXB requires an XSD, JSF 1.1 used a DTD).  Maybe if 
> we can determine if all JSF 1.1 documents could conform to the new JSF 
> 1.2 schema, I could just do a string replace on the XML and replace DTD 
> processing instruction w/ an schema reference ... then send it through JAXB.
> 
> BTW, what does the RI use for this task?  I remember them having very 
> few dependencies.

Well, yes and no.  They forked beanutils, collections, digester, and 
even commons logging.  They just changed the package names to 
com.sun.org.apache.whatever.  So what you end up with is just two jars, 
jsf-api.jar and jsf-impl.jar.  The impl jar has all the forked apache 
commons stuff in it.

Every project in the world seems to need these four commons packages 
these days.  So I don't think it's a big issue to add them.

Is there still something you want me to ping the attorney about?  What 
was the exact question?

> 
> Still thinking.
> 
> Dennis Byrne
> 
> On 10/29/07, *Stan Silvert* <ssilvert at redhat.com 
> <mailto:ssilvert at redhat.com>> wrote:
> 
>     I've been working on a reply to this for awhile.  I'll post what I have
>     so far, which I know does not answer the question.  I'm still
>     working on
>     it though.
> 
>     --------------------------------------------------------------
>     So at the end of the day, what do you have?  It would be really great if
>     you had all the composite config info accessible through a simple API.
>     I'm talking about the result of all the faces-config files in the
>     application.  Plus a report that you can spit out to see all of your
>     configuration.  Bonus points if it also shows the config that results
>     from Seam annotations.  Everybody would love that.
> 
>     Right now, you have managed bean definitions coming from scads of
>     thrid-party libraries, factory declarations, etc.  For instance, which
>     FacesContextFactory won the battle?  Can I see the whole chain of
>     factories?
> 
>     Same goes for web.xml.  I know that MyFaces parses the web.xml.  Even
>     having an API that can tell me how the FacesServlet is mapped would be
>     very useful.
> 
>     So I hope that's where you are going with this, but unfortunately it
>     doesn't answer your questions.
> 
>     How hard would it be to at least get rid of commons logging?  Right now
>     everything in JSFUnit just lets the exceptions bubble all the way up.
>     Then the application developer can decide if/how they are logged.  I
>     think this is a good approach for JUnit tests because in a test you
>     usually just let the exceptions bubble up and allow JUnit to report a
>     failure.
> 
> 
> 
>     Dennis Byrne wrote:
>      > I took MyFaces 1.2.0 and stripped somewhere around 80% of the
>     classes.
>      > Pretty much ripped out everything but org.apache.myfaces.config
>      > package.  Doing this gives you just enough to parse versions 1.0, 1.1
>      > and 1.2 of faces-config files using two lines of code.
>      >
>      > ByteArrayInputStream bais = new
>      > ByteArrayInputStream(testFacesConfig.getBytes());
>      > dispenser.feed(unmarshaller.getFacesConfig(bais, null));
>      >
>      > Here are the costs of going this route.  This introduces a
>     dependency on
>      > digestor, commons logging, beanutils and commons collections.  It
>     also
>      > means we have to maintain the myfaces-stripped jar until the config
>      > stuff gets moved into the new myfaces commons project (which
>     probably
>      > won't be released before JSFUnit).  It also means we have to ping a
>      > lawyer because I have never done this before (change ASF artifact,
>      > release under LGPL).
>      >
>      > Let me know your thoughts.  I timeboxed this at an hour so I
>     don't have
>      > a lot of emotions behind going this route.  Part of me feels like
>     just
>      > benching this until after the release.
>      > --
>      > Dennis Byrne
>      >
>      >
>      >
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>      >
>      > _______________________________________________
>      > jsfunit-dev mailing list
>      > jsfunit-dev at lists.jboss.org <mailto:jsfunit-dev at lists.jboss.org>
>      > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jsfunit-dev
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     jsfunit-dev mailing list
>     jsfunit-dev at lists.jboss.org <mailto:jsfunit-dev at lists.jboss.org>
>     https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jsfunit-dev
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Dennis Byrne
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> jsfunit-dev mailing list
> jsfunit-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jsfunit-dev