[jsr-314-open-mirror] [jsr-314-open] Fwd: Dynamisches Einschalten Development Mode

Sat Mar 27 04:40:50 EDT 2010

Hi Martin,

We had a long thread on this in January. I'm including below the last message of Ed on this issue.

Best regards,
Ganesh

Martin Marinschek schrieb:
> Hi guys,
> 
> find attached feedback from a workshop participant. He would like to
> have web-inf parameters which can be set programmatically or evaluated
> via EL (and point to an application scoped bean, I would say). Do we
> already plan to support this? (for me, EL evaluation seems to be the
> way to go, but are there any issues with timing here? will we need to
> evaluate params before the basic setup for doing this is there?)
> 
> If this can not make it in the spec, Ryan, Leonardo, can we think
> about supporting this in the implementations?
> 
> best regards,
> 
> Martin
> 
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Heinz HUBER <hhuber at racon-linz.at>
> Date: 2010/3/24
> Subject: Dynamisches Einschalten Development Mode
> To: martin at marinschek.com
> 
> 
> 
> Hallo Hr Marinschek,
> 
> wie heute kurz besprochen, wäre es interessant, wenn man den
> Deveolpment Mode und ähnliche Features (zB Pretty Html) dynamisch
> steuern könnte.
> Bei uns die Anforderung an die Entwicklung, dass daselbe EAR
> (respektive WAR) in Test und Produktion eingesetzt sein muss.
> Zur Sicherheit sind daher diese Einstellungen im web.xml alle deaktiviert.
> 
> Jetzt wäre es allerdings schön, wenn man diese in Test (entweder
> generell oder bei Bedarf) aktivieren könnte. Wobei hier eine Steuerung
> auf Basis VM-Variablen natürlich ausreichend ist.
> Bei dem Termin heute kam dafür die Idee, EL für diese Settings zu erlauben.
> Wäre interessant, wenn irgendeine Steuerungsmöglichkeit in den
> Standeard aufgenommen würde.
> 
> Freundliche Grüße
> Mag. Heinz HUBER
> 
> Software-Entwicklung dezentrale Systeme
> RACON Software GmbH
> A-4021 Linz, Goethestraße 80
> Tel: +43 732 6929 1664
> Fax: +43 732 6929 1488
> mailto:hhuber at racon-linz.at
> http://www.racon-linz.at
> RACON Software Gesellschaft m.b.H., A-4021 Linz, Goethestraße 80, FN
> 86804d, Landesgericht Linz
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Der Austausch von Nachrichten mit o.a. Absender via e-mail dient
> ausschließlich Informationszwecken. Rechtsgeschäftliche Erklärungen
> dürfen über dieses Medium nicht ausgetauscht werden.
> 
> Correspondence with a.m. sender via e-mail is only for information
> purposes. This medium is not to be used for the exchange of
> legally-binding communications.
> 
> 
> 
> 

-------- Original-Nachricht --------
Betreff: Re: [jsr-314-open] [jsf2next] PROJECT_STAGE	system	property	configuration
Datum: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 08:43:23 -0800
Von: Ed Burns <Ed.Burns at Sun.COM>
Antwort an: jsr-314-open at jcp.org
An: jsr-314-open at jcp.org
Referenzen: <a3f2f0581001031245q1015dd3aj9c38974868584aff at mail.gmail.com>	<4B441C89.60507 at horstmann.com> <19268.52433.349823.315935 at sun.com>	<4B44E401.3020205 at horstmann.com> <19276.57985.963365.57446 at sun.com>	<4B4DD7CF.1090505 at horstmann.com> <4B4F5E6E.50401 at oracle.com>	<4B4F718F.2070500 at horstmann.com> <4B4F7B5A.90101 at oracle.com>	<4B54822D.7000108 at horstmann.com>	<a3f2f0581001181046n2b6dd445g457837ad8bde6396 at mail.gmail.com>	<4B54C194.9050203 at oracle.com> <19286.9912.390042.837832 at sun.com>	<4B562C1C.5060808 at oracle.com>

>>>>> On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 17:03:08 -0500, Andy Schwartz <andy.schwartz at oracle.com> said:

AS> Personally I don't understand the nature of the objection.  In some case 
AS> fine-grained (application-specific) control is desired.  We have 
AS> addressed this case via the context parameter.  There seems to be 
AS> general agreement in our EG that a system-level property would also be 
AS> beneficial and in particular would improve the ease of use of this 
AS> feature for development-time scenarios (ie. no need for a web.xml or 
AS> JNDI config).  Not sure why we need to choose one approach vs. the 
AS> other.  Both serve a purpose.

EB> In fact, I'm on the phone with Bill Shannon, Roberto Chinnici, Rajiv
EB> Mordani, and the Sun EE architects right now for our weekly meeting.  I
EB> have requested a timeslot to bring this up (again) there.  I'm glad I'm
EB> on the phone because otherwise, I might get tomatoes thrown in my face.

AS> Wow, sounds harsh.  I guess I am missing why this is so
controversial.

I brought this issue to the Sun JavaEE Architecture meeting on Tuesday
19 January 2010.  This meeting happens mostly weekly and is where the
Sun EE Spec leads coordinate efforts to drive JavaEE spec efforts to
completion.  The technical leadership at this meeting includes Bill
Shannon, Sun Distinguised Engineer and past JavaEE spec lead, and
Roberto Chinnici JavaEE 6 spec lead.

I brought up two issues regarding ProjectStage

1. revive the drive to expose ProjectStage to lower level technologies
in EE.

2. have a System property to set the ProjectStage.

For 1), the following questions were raised:

* What specific use-cases exist for having ProjectStage at the servlet
  level?  If the Servlet EG reviewed the proposal and ultimately
  rejected it, why bring it up again?

* What about Gavin King's "alternatives" proposal?

  Pete Muir has clarified at this meeting that the "alternatives"
  proposal from Gavin did not make it into CDI in such a way as to be
  appropriate for our needs in the ProjectStage feature.

For 2), the following points were raised:

* There are no other System Properties in all of EE.  Why do we need one
  now?

* Why, specifically, does this system property need to be a part of the
  portable programming model?

  I voiced that it's useful in cases like mvn jetty run, or mvn tomcat
  run.  Bill countered that such usages are already container specific,
  so it would best be addressed with a container specific configuration.

In conclusion, I think we should close this spec issue and handle the
System Property at the impl level.  I have opened issue 1539 for this
case.  I will send a separate email regarding this issue.

>>>>> On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 17:07:13 -0500, "Lincoln Baxter, III" <lincolnbaxter at gmail.com> said:

LB> We should also probably decide and state that configuration defined in
LB> web.xml will override the system property.. or visa versa. Though I think
LB> the former allows more fine grained control.

LB> I am in favor of the System property overriding web.xml. I don't think it
LB> makes sense otherwise.

I agree also.

DA> For the implementations, it might be a good idea to borrow the log message
DA> the Wicket uses when running in development mode.

DA> ********************************************************************
DA> *** WARNING: JavaServer Faces is running in DEVELOPMENT mode.    ***
DA> ***                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^          ***
DA> *** Do NOT deploy to your live server(s) without changing this.  ***
DA> *** See Application#getProjectStage() for more information.      ***
DA> ********************************************************************

Yes, I've added that to the issue.

Ed
-- 
| ed.burns at sun.com  | office: 408 884 9519 OR x31640
| homepage:         | http://ridingthecrest.com/

-- 
"There are two kinds of people in the world, those who believe there are two kinds of people and those who don't."
— Robert Benchley
-- 
"There are two kinds of people in the world, those who believe there are two kinds of people and those who don't."
— Robert Benchley