Hi I have one question. If facelets is ASL 2.0, can we take all documentation related to "ui" namespace and include it into our codebase? can we take also the test sources and update them to include into our junit tests? Theorically I think the answer is yes, but better to ask first before commit.
regards Leonardo Uribe 2009/8/5 Matthias Wessendorf <[email protected]> > On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 3:42 PM, Simon Lessard<[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hmm, > > > > I used the latest nightly build when I integrated the code. However, that > > was about 3~4 months ago, so maybe it changed a little since then, or > there > > was another usable branch that I was unaware of. That being said, maybe > we > > should add the required changes by ourselves. Even if Facelets is ASL > 2.0, I > > think it would be healthy to have 2 different implementation in case one > > produces an innovation that could improve performance or another aspect > of > > it. > > +1 > > > > > On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 9:03 AM, Curtiss Howard <[email protected] > > > > wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> I just wanted to let everyone know that with a couple tweaks to the > >> Facelets implementation I've been able to get the Mojarra "Guess > >> Number 2.0" custom taglib working, which does some client-side JS > >> validation. It looks like the 2.0 codepath is looking very good so > >> far! > >> > >> However, in the process I've noticed that the Facelets implementation > >> we're using is a bit... out of date, at least with respect to the > >> Facelets taglib parser. It seems to be geared towards version 1.0 > >> documents, and the demo app I'm working with ships a 2.0 version > >> document. Due to the parser only understanding 1.0 documents, it > >> turns on DTD validation and turns off namespace handling. The > >> problem, of course, with recent versions of the Facelets taglib > >> document is that it does schema validation and is namespace-aware. > >> > >> So what's the deal with the Facelets implementation we're using? I'm > >> guessing it's out of date, or at least portions of it are. Is it > >> going to be upgraded or should I try to make the taglib parser do a > >> dual-parsing approach? If so, I've got a few more questions :). Let > >> me know what you guys think. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> > >> Curtiss Howard > > > > > > > > -- > Matthias Wessendorf > > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ > sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf > twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf >
