Hi Rudy,
A couple of things come to mind.
- Each scope would only be included when the customer actually wants to use it
- If you want to deliver an alternative implementation you can do so easily
- It would make sure the scope is only using public Faces / CDI APIs
- We could see how much each scope is used which helps to figure out where we should put our scarce resources go forward
And on your question of compliance that is a TCK testing aspect of things, which does not limit allowing this modular approach.
Thanks!
Kind regards,
Manfred Riem
From: faces-dev <faces-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of
Rudy De Busscher
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2021 6:02 AM
To: faces developer discussions <faces-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [faces-dev] Modularizing Faces
What is the benefit of having each scope in a separate module when they all need to be available to become a compliant implementation?
Hi Arjan,
One could imagine a separate module for each of the following:
FlashScoped
ViewScoped
ConverationScoped
ClientWindowScoped (annotation is not there yet)
RedirectScoped (annotation is not there yet)
Thanks!
Kind regards,
Manfred Riem
Hi,
Great idea! Any proposal for the modules we should have?
Hi,
Now that modules are becoming more and more mainstream is it time to consider create a modular Faces runtime?
Let me know your thoughts!
Thanks!
Kind regards,
Manfred Riem
_______________________________________________
faces-dev mailing list
faces-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/faces-dev
_______________________________________________
faces-dev mailing list
faces-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/faces-dev
|