From roger49@example.com Sat Apr 01 10:40:19 2006 Return-Path: <roger49@example.com> Delivered-To: roger49@example.com Received: (qmail 32621 invoked from network); 1 Apr 2006 10:40:17 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 1 Apr 2006 10:40:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 67253 invoked by uid 500); 1 Apr 2006 10:40:13 -0000 Delivered-To: roger49@example.com Received: (qmail 66879 invoked by uid 500); 1 Apr 2006 10:40:11 -0000 Mailing-List: contact roger49@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: <mailto:roger49@example.com> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:roger49@example.com> List-Post: <mailto:roger49@example.com> List-Id: <dev.myfaces.apache.org> Reply-To: "MyFaces Development" <roger49@example.com> Delivered-To: mailing list roger49@example.com Received: (qmail 66857 invoked by uid 99); 1 Apr 2006 10:40:11 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 01 Apr 2006 02:40:11 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: local policy) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO mail0.ewetel.de) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 01 Apr 2006 02:40:10 -0800 Received: from gateway.privat (dyndsl-085-016-013-178.ewe-ip-backbone.de [83.161.120.155]) by mail0.ewetel.de (8.12.1/8.12.9) with ESMTP id k31Adk4d008025; Sat, 1 Apr 2006 12:39:47 +0200 (MEST) Received: from debian.privat ([83.161.120.155]) by gateway.privat with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1FPdVv-0005Q1-CH; Sat, 01 Apr 2006 12:39:27 +0200 Message-ID: <roger49@example.com> Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2006 12:39:26 +0200 From: Volker Weber <roger49@example.com> User-Agent: Debian Thunderbird 1.0.2 (X11/20051002) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: MyFaces Development <roger49@example.com> CC: MyFaces Discussion <roger49@example.com> Subject: [TOBAGO] removing label attributes from components Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Weber-Oldenburg-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-CheckCompat: OK X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Hi, cc'ing to users@ to inform tobago users. I'm working on TOBAGO-10 (Combine the attributes label, labelWithAccessKey and accessKey to one attribute label). On many <tc:...> components, those where a <tx:...> component exists, the label attribute is already marked as deprecated. Any objections removing label attribute on those components now ? Regards, Volker -- Don't answer to From: address! Mail to this account are droped if not recieved via mailinglist. To contact me direct create the mail address by concatenating my forename to my senders domain. From roger49@example.com Sat Apr 01 12:34:04 2006 Return-Path: <roger49@example.com> Delivered-To: roger49@example.com Received: (qmail 64154 invoked from network); 1 Apr 2006 12:33:53 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 1 Apr 2006 12:33:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 30045 invoked by uid 500); 1 Apr 2006 12:33:52 -0000 Delivered-To: roger49@example.com Received: (qmail 29996 invoked by uid 500); 1 Apr 2006 12:33:51 -0000 Mailing-List: contact roger49@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: <mailto:roger49@example.com> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:roger49@example.com> List-Post: <mailto:roger49@example.com> List-Id: <dev.myfaces.apache.org> Reply-To: "MyFaces Development" <roger49@example.com> Delivered-To: mailing list roger49@example.com Received: (qmail 29985 invoked by uid 99); 1 Apr 2006 12:33:51 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 01 Apr 2006 04:33:51 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of roger49@example.com designates 83.161.120.155 as permitted sender) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO smtp.ops.co.at) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 01 Apr 2006 04:33:51 -0800 Received: by smtp.ops.co.at (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 2BC4F23C0AF; Sat, 1 Apr 2006 14:33:27 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (mgate.int.ops.co.at [83.161.120.155]) by smtp.ops.co.at (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23A6623C0A8 for <roger49@example.com>; Sat, 1 Apr 2006 14:33:26 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <roger49@example.com> Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2006 14:33:25 +0200 From: Mario Ivankovits <roger49@example.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (X11/20060111) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: MyFaces Development <roger49@example.com> Subject: Detection of ExtensionsFilter Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.64 (2004-01-11) on smtp.ops.co.at X-Spam-Level: X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Old-Spam-Status: No, hits=-64.3 required=6.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RATWR10_MESSID, USER_IN_WHITELIST autolearn=no version=2.64 X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Hi! I thought about creating some logic to detect if a ExtensionFilter is configured. To archive this, I'll add - say in HtmlFormRenderer (dont know the exact name now, any other component will be fine too) in encodeStart something like: if (not checked in session) { new Throwable().printStacktrace(StringWriter) if (sw.toString().indexOf(ExtensionsFilter) < 0) throw new FacesConfigurationException() .... set checked in session } What do you think? Ciao, Mario From roger49@example.com Sat Apr 01 18:21:58 2006 Return-Path: <roger49@example.com> Delivered-To: roger49@example.com Received: (qmail 81043 invoked from network); 1 Apr 2006 18:21:58 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 1 Apr 2006 18:21:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 63317 invoked by uid 500); 1 Apr 2006 18:21:56 -0000 Delivered-To: roger49@example.com Received: (qmail 63263 invoked by uid 500); 1 Apr 2006 18:21:56 -0000 Mailing-List: contact roger49@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: <mailto:roger49@example.com> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:roger49@example.com> List-Post: <mailto:roger49@example.com> List-Id: <dev.myfaces.apache.org> Reply-To: "MyFaces Development" <roger49@example.com> Delivered-To: mailing list roger49@example.com Received: (qmail 63252 invoked by uid 99); 1 Apr 2006 18:21:55 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 01 Apr 2006 10:21:55 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.3 required=10.0 tests=RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: local policy) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO ns-omrbm4.netsolmail.com) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 01 Apr 2006 10:21:55 -0800 Received: from mail.networksolutionsemail.com (omr4.mgt.bos.netsol.com [83.161.120.155] (may be forged)) by ns-omrbm4.netsolmail.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id k31ILWQ3000557 for <roger49@example.com>; Sat, 1 Apr 2006 13:21:32 -0500 Received: (qmail 6668 invoked by uid 78); 1 Apr 2006 18:21:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO webmail8) (83.161.120.155) by 83.161.120.155 with SMTP; 1 Apr 2006 18:21:31 -0000 Received: from 83.161.120.155 (roger49@example.com [83.161.120.155]) by webmail8 (EdgeDesk 4.02) with WEBMAIL id 29828; Sat, 01 Apr 2006 18:21:31 +0000 From: "Dennis Byrne" <roger49@example.com> To: "MyFaces Development" <roger49@example.com> Importance: Normal Sensitivity: Normal Message-ID: <W1537926353298281143915691@webmail8> X-Mailer: Mintersoft EdgeDesk, Build 4.03.0105 X-Originating-IP: [83.161.120.155] X-Forwarded-For: [(null)] Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2006 18:21:31 +0000 Subject: Re: Detection of ExtensionsFilter MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Hello Mario, Perhaps this check could be moved to application scope and you could chec= k for it once in the the myfaces context startup listener. You many also= want to perform this check with a quick SAX ( less memeory than DOM ) ha= ndler for the deployment descriptor in order to determine which filters a= n app has. Just a few ideas. Dennis Byrne >-----Original Message----- >From: Mario Ivankovits [mailto:roger49@example.com] >Sent: Saturday, April 1, 2006 07:33 AM >To: 'MyFaces Development' >Subject: Detection of ExtensionsFilter > >Hi! > >I thought about creating some logic to detect if a ExtensionFilter is >configured. > >To archive this, I'll add - say in HtmlFormRenderer (dont know the exact= >name now, any other component will be fine too) in encodeStart something= >like: > >if (not checked in session) >{ > new Throwable().printStacktrace(StringWriter) > if (sw.toString().indexOf(ExtensionsFilter) < 0) throw new >FacesConfigurationException() .... > set checked in session >} > > >What do you think? > >Ciao, >Mario > > From roger49@example.com Sat Apr 01 18:29:20 2006 Return-Path: <roger49@example.com> Delivered-To: roger49@example.com Received: (qmail 84336 invoked from network); 1 Apr 2006 18:29:18 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 1 Apr 2006 18:29:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 66932 invoked by uid 500); 1 Apr 2006 18:29:13 -0000 Delivered-To: roger49@example.com Received: (qmail 66873 invoked by uid 500); 1 Apr 2006 18:29:13 -0000 Mailing-List: contact roger49@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: <mailto:roger49@example.com> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:roger49@example.com> List-Post: <mailto:roger49@example.com> List-Id: <dev.myfaces.apache.org> Reply-To: "MyFaces Development" <roger49@example.com> Delivered-To: mailing list roger49@example.com Received: (qmail 66852 invoked by uid 99); 1 Apr 2006 18:29:13 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 01 Apr 2006 10:29:13 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: local policy) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO natnoddy.rzone.de) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 01 Apr 2006 10:29:12 -0800 Received: from [83.161.120.155] (dyndsl-085-016-014-230.ewe-ip-backbone.de [83.161.120.155]) (authenticated bits=0) by post.webmailer.de (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k31ISjna023431; Sat, 1 Apr 2006 20:28:49 +0200 (MEST) Message-ID: <roger49@example.com> Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2006 20:28:56 +0200 From: Udo Schnurpfeil <roger49@example.com> User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Macintosh/20050923) X-Accept-Language: de-DE, de, en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: MyFaces Development <roger49@example.com> CC: MyFaces Discussion <roger49@example.com> Subject: Re: [TOBAGO] removing label attributes from components References: <roger49@example.com> In-Reply-To: <roger49@example.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Please do not remove it now. Keep it deprecated for a short while. And please keep the labelWithAccessKey and accessKey attributes also as deprecated. Regards Udo Volker Weber schrieb: > Hi, > > cc'ing to users@ to inform tobago users. > > I'm working on TOBAGO-10 (Combine the attributes label, > labelWithAccessKey and accessKey to one attribute label). > > On many <tc:...> components, those where a <tx:...> component exists, > the label attribute is already marked as deprecated. > > Any objections removing label attribute on those components now ? > > > Regards, > Volker From roger49@example.com Sat Apr 01 18:38:15 2006 Return-Path: <roger49@example.com> Delivered-To: roger49@example.com Received: (qmail 86454 invoked from network); 1 Apr 2006 18:38:14 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 1 Apr 2006 18:38:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 78515 invoked by uid 500); 1 Apr 2006 18:38:13 -0000 Delivered-To: roger49@example.com Received: (qmail 78471 invoked by uid 500); 1 Apr 2006 18:38:12 -0000 Mailing-List: contact roger49@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: <mailto:roger49@example.com> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:roger49@example.com> List-Post: <mailto:roger49@example.com> List-Id: <dev.myfaces.apache.org> Reply-To: "MyFaces Development" <roger49@example.com> Delivered-To: mailing list roger49@example.com Received: (qmail 78460 invoked by uid 99); 1 Apr 2006 18:38:12 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 01 Apr 2006 10:38:12 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of roger49@example.com designates 83.161.120.155 as permitted sender) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO smtp.ops.co.at) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 01 Apr 2006 10:38:11 -0800 Received: by smtp.ops.co.at (Postfix, from userid 65534) id C76EF23C0AF; Sat, 1 Apr 2006 20:37:47 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (mgate.int.ops.co.at [83.161.120.155]) by smtp.ops.co.at (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91CC923C0A8 for <roger49@example.com>; Sat, 1 Apr 2006 20:37:45 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <roger49@example.com> Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2006 20:37:45 +0200 From: Mario Ivankovits <roger49@example.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (X11/20060111) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: MyFaces Development <roger49@example.com> Subject: Re: Detection of ExtensionsFilter References: <W1537926353298281143915691@webmail8> In-Reply-To: <W1537926353298281143915691@webmail8> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.64 (2004-01-11) on smtp.ops.co.at X-Spam-Level: X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Old-Spam-Status: No, hits=-64.3 required=6.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, LOCAL_SPAMSIGN_2,RATWR10_MESSID,USER_IN_WHITELIST autolearn=no version=2.64 X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Hi! > Perhaps this check could be moved to application scope Yes, I also tought about it. > You many also want to perform this check with a quick SAX ( less memeory than DOM ) handler for the deployment descriptor in order to determine which filters an app has. I think its too hard and too error prone to detect if the extensions filter is correctly setup. And e.g. in our application we call the extensions filter from our own filter, so the extension filter didnt show up in web.xml (for sure the resource provider is configured, but not the one which is responsible to parse the response) But, yes ... I'll check both use cases of the extensions filter, so it might be required to parse web.xml anyway. > Just a few ideas. > Thanks! Ciao, Mario From roger49@example.com Sat Apr 01 18:43:54 2006 Return-Path: <roger49@example.com> Delivered-To: roger49@example.com Received: (qmail 87843 invoked from network); 1 Apr 2006 18:43:53 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 1 Apr 2006 18:43:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 80794 invoked by uid 500); 1 Apr 2006 18:43:52 -0000 Delivered-To: roger49@example.com Received: (qmail 80742 invoked by uid 500); 1 Apr 2006 18:43:52 -0000 Mailing-List: contact roger49@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: <mailto:roger49@example.com> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:roger49@example.com> List-Post: <mailto:roger49@example.com> List-Id: <dev.myfaces.apache.org> Reply-To: "MyFaces Development" <roger49@example.com> Delivered-To: mailing list roger49@example.com Received: (qmail 80731 invoked by uid 99); 1 Apr 2006 18:43:52 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 01 Apr 2006 10:43:52 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.3 required=10.0 tests=RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: local policy) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO ns-omrbm5.netsolmail.com) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 01 Apr 2006 10:43:51 -0800 Received: from mail.networksolutionsemail.com (omr5.mgt.bos.netsol.com [83.161.120.155] (may be forged)) by ns-omrbm5.netsolmail.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id k31IhSDT001588 for <roger49@example.com>; Sat, 1 Apr 2006 13:43:29 -0500 Received: (qmail 22116 invoked by uid 78); 1 Apr 2006 18:43:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO webmail13) (83.161.120.155) by 83.161.120.155 with SMTP; 1 Apr 2006 18:43:28 -0000 Received: from 83.161.120.155 (roger49@example.com [83.161.120.155]) by webmail13 (EdgeDesk 4.02) with WEBMAIL id 21308; Sat, 01 Apr 2006 18:43:27 +0000 From: "Dennis Byrne" <roger49@example.com> To: "MyFaces Development" <roger49@example.com> Importance: Normal Sensitivity: Normal Message-ID: <W1688720382213081143917007@webmail13> X-Mailer: Mintersoft EdgeDesk, Build 4.03.0105 X-Originating-IP: [83.161.120.155] X-Forwarded-For: [(null)] Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2006 18:43:27 +0000 Subject: Re: Detection of ExtensionsFilter MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Didn't the extensions filter at one time put a flag in the request as it came in? This would solve both use cases wouldn't it? Then you wouldn't even need to parse the dd. Dennis Byrne >-----Original Message----- >From: Mario Ivankovits [mailto:roger49@example.com] >Sent: Saturday, April 1, 2006 01:37 PM >To: 'MyFaces Development' >Subject: Re: Detection of ExtensionsFilter > >Hi! >> Perhaps this check could be moved to application scope >Yes, I also tought about it. > >> You many also want to perform this check with a quick SAX ( less memeory than DOM ) handler for the deployment descriptor in order to determine which filters an app has. >I think its too hard and too error prone to detect if the extensions >filter is correctly setup. And e.g. in our application we call the >extensions filter from our own filter, so the extension filter didnt >show up in web.xml (for sure the resource provider is configured, but >not the one which is responsible to parse the response) >But, yes ... I'll check both use cases of the extensions filter, so it >might be required to parse web.xml anyway. > >> Just a few ideas. >> >Thanks! > > >Ciao, >Mario > > From roger49@example.com Sat Apr 01 18:51:28 2006 Return-Path: <roger49@example.com> Delivered-To: roger49@example.com Received: (qmail 89387 invoked from network); 1 Apr 2006 18:51:27 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 1 Apr 2006 18:51:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 85737 invoked by uid 500); 1 Apr 2006 18:51:26 -0000 Delivered-To: roger49@example.com Received: (qmail 85690 invoked by uid 500); 1 Apr 2006 18:51:26 -0000 Mailing-List: contact roger49@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: <mailto:roger49@example.com> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:roger49@example.com> List-Post: <mailto:roger49@example.com> List-Id: <dev.myfaces.apache.org> Reply-To: "MyFaces Development" <roger49@example.com> Delivered-To: mailing list roger49@example.com Received: (qmail 85679 invoked by uid 99); 1 Apr 2006 18:51:26 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 01 Apr 2006 10:51:26 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: local policy) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO mailgwvw01.freelance.com) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 01 Apr 2006 10:51:22 -0800 Received: from mailgwvw02.freelance.com (mailgwvw02.freelance.com [83.161.120.155]) by mailgwvw01.freelance.com (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id k31IrXwE027644 for <roger49@example.com>; Sat, 1 Apr 2006 20:53:35 +0200 Received: from [83.161.120.155] ([83.161.120.155]) by mailgwvw02.freelance.com (Lotus Domino Release 5.0.12) with ESMTP id 2006040120483578:827 ; Sat, 1 Apr 2006 20:48:35 +0100 Subject: Re: Detection of ExtensionsFilter From: Sylvain Vieujot <roger49@example.com> To: MyFaces Development <roger49@example.com> In-Reply-To: <roger49@example.com> References: <W1537926353298281143915691@webmail8> <roger49@example.com> Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2006 22:50:52 +0400 Message-Id: <1143917452.856.100.camel@sv> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 83.161.120.155 (83.161.120.155-1.1.fc4.nr) X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on mailgw01/Freelance(Release 5.0.12 |February 13, 2003) at 04/01/2006 08:48:36 PM, Serialize by Router on mailgw01/Freelance(Release 5.0.12 |February 13, 2003) at 04/01/2006 08:48:39 PM, Serialize complete at 04/01/2006 08:48:39 PM Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=-mfTr+0SkKypbTR4Jtsu6" X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.87.1/1364/Thu Mar 30 22:05:50 2006 on mailgwvw01.freelance.com X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N --=-mfTr+0SkKypbTR4Jtsu6 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain You could do : if( request.getAttribute(org.apache.myfaces.webapp.filter.ExtensionsFilter.DOFILTER_CALLED)!=null ) But the DOFILTER_CALLED variable is private. Maybe hack it with a copy of the String. If you find it useful, maybe the clean way would be to add an hasBeenCalled public static method to the ExtensionsFilter. Sylvain. On Sat, 2006-04-01 at 20:37 +0200, Mario Ivankovits wrote: > Hi! > > Perhaps this check could be moved to application scope > Yes, I also tought about it. > > > You many also want to perform this check with a quick SAX ( less memeory than DOM ) handler for the deployment descriptor in order to determine which filters an app has. > I think its too hard and too error prone to detect if the extensions > filter is correctly setup. And e.g. in our application we call the > extensions filter from our own filter, so the extension filter didnt > show up in web.xml (for sure the resource provider is configured, but > not the one which is responsible to parse the response) > But, yes ... I'll check both use cases of the extensions filter, so it > might be required to parse web.xml anyway. > > > Just a few ideas. > > > Thanks! > > > Ciao, > Mario > --=-mfTr+0SkKypbTR4Jtsu6 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 TRANSITIONAL//EN"> <HTML> <HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; CHARSET=UTF-8"> <META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="GtkHTML/3.8.2"> </HEAD> <BODY> You could do :<BR> <TT>if( request.getAttribute(org.apache.myfaces.webapp.filter.ExtensionsFilter.DOFILTER_CALLED)!=null )</TT><BR> <BR> But the DOFILTER_CALLED variable is private.<BR> Maybe hack it with a copy of the String.<BR> If you find it useful, maybe the clean way would be to add an hasBeenCalled public static method to the ExtensionsFilter.<BR> <BR> Sylvain.<BR> <BR> On Sat, 2006-04-01 at 20:37 +0200, Mario Ivankovits wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE> <PRE> <FONT COLOR="#000000">Hi!</FONT> <FONT COLOR="#000000">&gt; Perhaps this check could be moved to application scope</FONT> <FONT COLOR="#000000">Yes, I also tought about it.</FONT> <FONT COLOR="#000000">&gt; You many also want to perform this check with a quick SAX ( less memeory than DOM ) handler for the deployment descriptor in order to determine which filters an app has.</FONT> <FONT COLOR="#000000">I think its too hard and too error prone to detect if the extensions</FONT> <FONT COLOR="#000000">filter is correctly setup. And e.g. in our application we call the</FONT> <FONT COLOR="#000000">extensions filter from our own filter, so the extension filter didnt</FONT> <FONT COLOR="#000000">show up in web.xml (for sure the resource provider is configured, but</FONT> <FONT COLOR="#000000">not the one which is responsible to parse the response)</FONT> <FONT COLOR="#000000">But, yes ... I'll check both use cases of the extensions filter, so it</FONT> <FONT COLOR="#000000">might be required to parse web.xml anyway.</FONT> <FONT COLOR="#000000">&gt; Just a few ideas.</FONT> <FONT COLOR="#000000">&gt; </FONT> <FONT COLOR="#000000">Thanks!</FONT> <FONT COLOR="#000000">Ciao,</FONT> <FONT COLOR="#000000">Mario</FONT> </PRE> </BLOCKQUOTE> </BODY> </HTML> --=-mfTr+0SkKypbTR4Jtsu6-- From roger49@example.com Sat Apr 01 18:53:26 2006 Return-Path: <roger49@example.com> Delivered-To: roger49@example.com Received: (qmail 89824 invoked from network); 1 Apr 2006 18:53:25 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 1 Apr 2006 18:53:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 86359 invoked by uid 500); 1 Apr 2006 18:53:23 -0000 Delivered-To: roger49@example.com Received: (qmail 86307 invoked by uid 500); 1 Apr 2006 18:53:23 -0000 Mailing-List: contact roger49@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: <mailto:roger49@example.com> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:roger49@example.com> List-Post: <mailto:roger49@example.com> List-Id: <dev.myfaces.apache.org> Reply-To: "MyFaces Development" <roger49@example.com> Delivered-To: mailing list roger49@example.com Received: (qmail 86296 invoked by uid 99); 1 Apr 2006 18:53:23 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 01 Apr 2006 10:53:23 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of roger49@example.com designates 83.161.120.155 as permitted sender) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO smtp.ops.co.at) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 01 Apr 2006 10:53:22 -0800 Received: by smtp.ops.co.at (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 30F5623C0AF; Sat, 1 Apr 2006 20:53:01 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (mgate.int.ops.co.at [83.161.120.155]) by smtp.ops.co.at (Postfix) with ESMTP id 394E223C0A8 for <roger49@example.com>; Sat, 1 Apr 2006 20:52:59 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <roger49@example.com> Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2006 20:52:59 +0200 From: Mario Ivankovits <roger49@example.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (X11/20060111) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: MyFaces Development <roger49@example.com> Subject: Re: Detection of ExtensionsFilter References: <W1688720382213081143917007@webmail13> In-Reply-To: <W1688720382213081143917007@webmail13> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.64 (2004-01-11) on smtp.ops.co.at X-Spam-Level: X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Old-Spam-Status: No, hits=-64.3 required=6.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RATWR10_MESSID, USER_IN_WHITELIST autolearn=no version=2.64 X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Hi! > Didn't the extensions filter at one time put a flag in the request as it came in? This would solve both use cases wouldn't it? Then you wouldn't even need to parse the dd. > Yes, you are right. So for the use case where the extensionsFilter buffers and parses the response I can check the request attribute. To check if the extensionsFilter is correctly configured to serve the resources I still have to parse the web.xml. But this should be doable. Ciao, Mario From roger49@example.com Sat Apr 01 18:53:32 2006 Return-Path: <roger49@example.com> Delivered-To: roger49@example.com Received: (qmail 89979 invoked from network); 1 Apr 2006 18:53:32 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 1 Apr 2006 18:53:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 86850 invoked by uid 500); 1 Apr 2006 18:53:30 -0000 Delivered-To: roger49@example.com Received: (qmail 86709 invoked by uid 500); 1 Apr 2006 18:53:30 -0000 Mailing-List: contact roger49@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: <mailto:roger49@example.com> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:roger49@example.com> List-Post: <mailto:roger49@example.com> List-Id: <dev.myfaces.apache.org> Reply-To: "MyFaces Development" <roger49@example.com> Delivered-To: mailing list roger49@example.com Received: (qmail 86698 invoked by uid 99); 1 Apr 2006 18:53:30 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 01 Apr 2006 10:53:30 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.3 required=10.0 tests=RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: local policy) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO ns-omrbm6.netsolmail.com) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 01 Apr 2006 10:53:29 -0800 Received: from mail.networksolutionsemail.com (omr6.mgt.bos.netsol.com [83.161.120.155] (may be forged)) by ns-omrbm6.netsolmail.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id k31Ir7kQ016530 for <roger49@example.com>; Sat, 1 Apr 2006 13:53:07 -0500 Received: (qmail 29656 invoked by uid 78); 1 Apr 2006 18:53:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO webmail9) (83.161.120.155) by 83.161.120.155 with SMTP; 1 Apr 2006 18:53:07 -0000 Received: from 83.161.120.155 (roger49@example.com [83.161.120.155]) by webmail9 (EdgeDesk 4.02) with WEBMAIL id 29806; Sat, 01 Apr 2006 18:53:07 +0000 From: "Dennis Byrne" <roger49@example.com> To: "MyFaces Development" <roger49@example.com> Importance: Normal Sensitivity: Normal Message-ID: <W1754923211298061143917587@webmail9> X-Mailer: Mintersoft EdgeDesk, Build 4.03.0105 X-Originating-IP: [83.161.120.155] X-Forwarded-For: [(null)] Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2006 18:53:07 +0000 Subject: Re: Detection of ExtensionsFilter MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N OK, so I guess it *still* puts the flag there ;) Dennis Byrne >-----Original Message----- >From: Sylvain Vieujot [mailto:roger49@example.com] >Sent: Saturday, April 1, 2006 01:50 PM >To: 'MyFaces Development' >Subject: Re: Detection of ExtensionsFilter > >You could do : >if( request.getAttribute(org.apache.myfaces.webapp.filter.ExtensionsFilter.DOFILTER_CALLED)!=null ) > >But the DOFILTER_CALLED variable is private. >Maybe hack it with a copy of the String. >If you find it useful, maybe the clean way would be to add an >hasBeenCalled public static method to the ExtensionsFilter. > >Sylvain. > >On Sat, 2006-04-01 at 20:37 +0200, Mario Ivankovits wrote: > >> Hi! >> > Perhaps this check could be moved to application scope >> Yes, I also tought about it. >> >> > You many also want to perform this check with a quick SAX ( less memeory than DOM ) handler for the deployment descriptor in order to determine which filters an app has. >> I think its too hard and too error prone to detect if the extensions >> filter is correctly setup. And e.g. in our application we call the >> extensions filter from our own filter, so the extension filter didnt >> show up in web.xml (for sure the resource provider is configured, but >> not the one which is responsible to parse the response) >> But, yes ... I'll check both use cases of the extensions filter, so it >> might be required to parse web.xml anyway. >> >> > Just a few ideas. >> > >> Thanks! >> >> >> Ciao, >> Mario >> > From roger49@example.com Sat Apr 01 18:57:00 2006 Return-Path: <roger49@example.com> Delivered-To: roger49@example.com Received: (qmail 90935 invoked from network); 1 Apr 2006 18:56:59 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 1 Apr 2006 18:56:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 88749 invoked by uid 500); 1 Apr 2006 18:56:58 -0000 Delivered-To: roger49@example.com Received: (qmail 88705 invoked by uid 500); 1 Apr 2006 18:56:58 -0000 Mailing-List: contact roger49@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: <mailto:roger49@example.com> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:roger49@example.com> List-Post: <mailto:roger49@example.com> List-Id: <dev.myfaces.apache.org> Reply-To: "MyFaces Development" <roger49@example.com> Delivered-To: mailing list roger49@example.com Received: (qmail 88694 invoked by uid 99); 1 Apr 2006 18:56:58 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 01 Apr 2006 10:56:58 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.3 required=10.0 tests=RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: local policy) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO omr1.networksolutionsemail.com) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 01 Apr 2006 10:56:57 -0800 Received: from mail.networksolutionsemail.com (omr1.mgt.bos.netsol.com [83.161.120.155] (may be forged)) by omr1.networksolutionsemail.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id k31IuZZj023391 for <roger49@example.com>; Sat, 1 Apr 2006 13:56:36 -0500 Received: (qmail 8213 invoked by uid 78); 1 Apr 2006 18:56:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO webmail1) (83.161.120.155) by 83.161.120.155 with SMTP; 1 Apr 2006 18:56:35 -0000 Received: from 83.161.120.155 (roger49@example.com [83.161.120.155]) by webmail1 (EdgeDesk 4.02) with WEBMAIL id 28890; Sat, 01 Apr 2006 18:56:36 +0000 From: "Dennis Byrne" <roger49@example.com> To: "MyFaces Development" <roger49@example.com> Importance: Normal Sensitivity: Normal Message-ID: <W1767826174288901143917796@webmail1> X-Mailer: Mintersoft EdgeDesk, Build 4.03.0105 X-Originating-IP: [83.161.120.155] X-Forwarded-For: [(null)] Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2006 18:56:36 +0000 Subject: Re: Detection of ExtensionsFilter MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N This is just me thinking out loud here, so let's just think out of the bo= x here ;) What if all of the ExtensionsFilter dependent components were = refactored to descend from a single abstract UIComponent parent that did = this check at some point during the request lifecycle? Dennis Byrne >-----Original Message----- >From: Mario Ivankovits [mailto:roger49@example.com] >Sent: Saturday, April 1, 2006 01:52 PM >To: 'MyFaces Development' >Subject: Re: Detection of ExtensionsFilter > >Hi! >> Didn't the extensions filter at one time put a flag in the request as = it came in? This would solve both use cases wouldn't it? Then you would= n't even need to parse the dd. >> >Yes, you are right. >So for the use case where the extensionsFilter buffers and parses the >response I can check the request attribute. > >To check if the extensionsFilter is correctly configured to serve the >resources I still have to parse the web.xml. But this should be doable. > >Ciao, >Mario > > From roger49@example.com Sat Apr 01 19:01:15 2006 Return-Path: <roger49@example.com> Delivered-To: roger49@example.com Received: (qmail 92249 invoked from network); 1 Apr 2006 19:01:15 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 1 Apr 2006 19:01:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 92650 invoked by uid 500); 1 Apr 2006 19:01:13 -0000 Delivered-To: roger49@example.com Received: (qmail 92604 invoked by uid 500); 1 Apr 2006 19:01:12 -0000 Mailing-List: contact roger49@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: <mailto:roger49@example.com> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:roger49@example.com> List-Post: <mailto:roger49@example.com> List-Id: <dev.myfaces.apache.org> Reply-To: "MyFaces Development" <roger49@example.com> Delivered-To: mailing list roger49@example.com Received: (qmail 92592 invoked by uid 99); 1 Apr 2006 19:01:12 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 01 Apr 2006 11:01:12 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of roger49@example.com designates 83.161.120.155 as permitted sender) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO smtp.ops.co.at) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 01 Apr 2006 11:01:12 -0800 Received: by smtp.ops.co.at (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 9192623C0AF; Sat, 1 Apr 2006 21:00:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (mgate.int.ops.co.at [83.161.120.155]) by smtp.ops.co.at (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2AA023C0A8 for <roger49@example.com>; Sat, 1 Apr 2006 21:00:48 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <roger49@example.com> Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2006 21:00:48 +0200 From: Mario Ivankovits <roger49@example.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (X11/20060111) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: MyFaces Development <roger49@example.com> Subject: Re: Detection of ExtensionsFilter References: <W1537926353298281143915691@webmail8> <roger49@example.com> <1143917452.856.100.camel@sv> In-Reply-To: <1143917452.856.100.camel@sv> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.64 (2004-01-11) on smtp.ops.co.at X-Spam-Level: X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Old-Spam-Status: No, hits=-64.3 required=6.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RATWR10_MESSID, USER_IN_WHITELIST autolearn=no version=2.64 X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Hi! > You could do : > if( > request.getAttribute(org.apache.myfaces.webapp.filter.ExtensionsFilter.DOFILTER_CALLED)!=null > ) > > But the DOFILTER_CALLED variable is private. Any problem to make it public? In fact I thought to add all this to tomahawk head to reduce the user questions about this topic on our MLs. Ciao, Mario From roger49@example.com Sat Apr 01 19:05:06 2006 Return-Path: <roger49@example.com> Delivered-To: roger49@example.com Received: (qmail 93759 invoked from network); 1 Apr 2006 19:05:05 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 1 Apr 2006 19:05:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 94750 invoked by uid 500); 1 Apr 2006 19:05:04 -0000 Delivered-To: roger49@example.com Received: (qmail 94708 invoked by uid 500); 1 Apr 2006 19:05:04 -0000 Mailing-List: contact roger49@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: <mailto:roger49@example.com> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:roger49@example.com> List-Post: <mailto:roger49@example.com> List-Id: <dev.myfaces.apache.org> Reply-To: "MyFaces Development" <roger49@example.com> Delivered-To: mailing list roger49@example.com Received: (qmail 94697 invoked by uid 99); 1 Apr 2006 19:05:03 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 01 Apr 2006 11:05:03 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of roger49@example.com designates 83.161.120.155 as permitted sender) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO smtp.ops.co.at) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 01 Apr 2006 11:05:03 -0800 Received: by smtp.ops.co.at (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 2F5FE23C0AF; Sat, 1 Apr 2006 21:04:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (mgate.int.ops.co.at [83.161.120.155]) by smtp.ops.co.at (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5392023C0A8 for <roger49@example.com>; Sat, 1 Apr 2006 21:04:39 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <roger49@example.com> Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2006 21:04:39 +0200 From: Mario Ivankovits <roger49@example.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (X11/20060111) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: MyFaces Development <roger49@example.com> Subject: Re: Detection of ExtensionsFilter References: <W1767826174288901143917796@webmail1> In-Reply-To: <W1767826174288901143917796@webmail1> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.64 (2004-01-11) on smtp.ops.co.at X-Spam-Level: X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Old-Spam-Status: No, hits=-64.3 required=6.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, LOCAL_SPAMSIGN_2,RATWR10_MESSID,USER_IN_WHITELIST autolearn=no version=2.64 X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N > > What if all of the ExtensionsFilter dependent components were refactored to descend from a single abstract UIComponent parent that did this check at some point during the request lifecycle? > What do you think about adding this check to AddResourceFactory.getInstance() ? Most of the time all you can do with AddResource depends on the extensionsFilter so this would be that a bad place, no? --- Mario From roger49@example.com Sat Apr 01 19:12:48 2006 Return-Path: <roger49@example.com> Delivered-To: roger49@example.com Received: (qmail 97340 invoked from network); 1 Apr 2006 19:12:46 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 1 Apr 2006 19:12:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 3042 invoked by uid 500); 1 Apr 2006 19:12:45 -0000 Delivered-To: roger49@example.com Received: (qmail 2999 invoked by uid 500); 1 Apr 2006 19:12:45 -0000 Mailing-List: contact roger49@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: <mailto:roger49@example.com> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:roger49@example.com> List-Post: <mailto:roger49@example.com> List-Id: <dev.myfaces.apache.org> Reply-To: "MyFaces Development" <roger49@example.com> Delivered-To: mailing list roger49@example.com Received: (qmail 2987 invoked by uid 99); 1 Apr 2006 19:12:45 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 01 Apr 2006 11:12:45 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.3 required=10.0 tests=RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: local policy) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO omr1.networksolutionsemail.com) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 01 Apr 2006 11:12:44 -0800 Received: from mail.networksolutionsemail.com (omr1.mgt.bos.netsol.com [83.161.120.155] (may be forged)) by omr1.networksolutionsemail.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id k31JCMZj026173 for <roger49@example.com>; Sat, 1 Apr 2006 14:12:23 -0500 Received: (qmail 12027 invoked by uid 78); 1 Apr 2006 19:12:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO webmail13) (83.161.120.155) by 83.161.120.155 with SMTP; 1 Apr 2006 19:12:21 -0000 Received: from 83.161.120.155 (roger49@example.com [83.161.120.155]) by webmail13 (EdgeDesk 4.02) with WEBMAIL id 1422; Sat, 01 Apr 2006 19:12:19 +0000 From: "Dennis Byrne" <roger49@example.com> To: "MyFaces Development" <roger49@example.com> Importance: Normal Sensitivity: Normal Message-ID: <W184842897114221143918739@webmail13> X-Mailer: Mintersoft EdgeDesk, Build 4.03.0105 X-Originating-IP: [83.161.120.155] X-Forwarded-For: [(null)] Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2006 19:12:19 +0000 Subject: Re: Detection of ExtensionsFilter MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N >What do you think about adding this check to >AddResourceFactory.getInstance() ? >Most of the time all you can do with AddResource depends on the >extensionsFilter so this would be that a bad place, no? Hmm ... I think the main problem for users isn't that they lack the exten= sions filter during the requests in which a tomahawk component renders a = "web callback" ( <script> or <style> ). Often the problem is that users = do not have the Filter configured for the subsequent request made by the = callback ( the @src of <script> or <style> ). Oh well, let us know what = you do ;) Dennis Byrne From roger49@example.com Sat Apr 01 19:38:11 2006 Return-Path: <roger49@example.com> Delivered-To: roger49@example.com Received: (qmail 6044 invoked from network); 1 Apr 2006 19:38:11 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 1 Apr 2006 19:38:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 19236 invoked by uid 500); 1 Apr 2006 19:38:09 -0000 Delivered-To: roger49@example.com Received: (qmail 19182 invoked by uid 500); 1 Apr 2006 19:38:08 -0000 Mailing-List: contact roger49@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: <mailto:roger49@example.com> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:roger49@example.com> List-Post: <mailto:roger49@example.com> List-Id: <dev.myfaces.apache.org> Reply-To: "MyFaces Development" <roger49@example.com> Delivered-To: mailing list roger49@example.com Received: (qmail 19171 invoked by uid 99); 1 Apr 2006 19:38:08 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 01 Apr 2006 11:38:08 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of roger49@example.com designates 83.161.120.155 as permitted sender) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO smtp.ops.co.at) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 01 Apr 2006 11:38:08 -0800 Received: by smtp.ops.co.at (Postfix, from userid 65534) id A0FB123C0AF; Sat, 1 Apr 2006 21:37:46 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (mgate.int.ops.co.at [83.161.120.155]) by smtp.ops.co.at (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEA2323C0A8 for <roger49@example.com>; Sat, 1 Apr 2006 21:37:43 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <roger49@example.com> Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2006 21:37:43 +0200 From: Mario Ivankovits <roger49@example.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (X11/20060111) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: MyFaces Development <roger49@example.com> Subject: Re: Detection of ExtensionsFilter References: <W184842897114221143918739@webmail13> In-Reply-To: <W184842897114221143918739@webmail13> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.64 (2004-01-11) on smtp.ops.co.at X-Spam-Level: X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Old-Spam-Status: No, hits=-64.2 required=6.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,HTML_60_70, HTML_MESSAGE,LOCAL_SPAMSIGN_2,RATWR10_MESSID,USER_IN_WHITELIST autolearn=no version=2.64 X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N > Hmm ... I think the main problem for users isn't that they lack the extensions filter during the requests in which a tomahawk component renders a "web callback" ( <script> or <style> ). Often the problem is that users do not have the Filter configured for the subsequent request made by the callback ( the @src of <script> or <style> ). You are right. > Oh well, let us know what you do ;) > Well, I already started to implement the check in AddResourceFactory :-) Now its time to see how to get the data out of web.xml Ciao, Mario From roger49@example.com Sat Apr 01 19:40:14 2006 Return-Path: <roger49@example.com> Delivered-To: roger49@example.com Received: (qmail 6760 invoked from network); 1 Apr 2006 19:40:12 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 1 Apr 2006 19:40:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 20773 invoked by uid 500); 1 Apr 2006 19:40:08 -0000 Delivered-To: roger49@example.com Received: (qmail 20718 invoked by uid 500); 1 Apr 2006 19:40:08 -0000 Mailing-List: contact roger49@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: <mailto:roger49@example.com> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:roger49@example.com> List-Post: <mailto:roger49@example.com> List-Id: <dev.myfaces.apache.org> Reply-To: "MyFaces Development" <roger49@example.com> Delivered-To: mailing list roger49@example.com Received: (qmail 20698 invoked by uid 99); 1 Apr 2006 19:40:08 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 01 Apr 2006 11:40:07 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of roger49@example.com designates 83.161.120.155 as permitted sender) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO wproxy.gmail.com) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 01 Apr 2006 11:40:07 -0800 Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id i32so844271wra for <roger49@example.com>; Sat, 01 Apr 2006 11:39:46 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=I2bG/z4guDiAFiJkMoOcvOkkM3+8mDRIYYzyBl86gApvSZVixaBqYa2nYGJfdGuCHWwsQsLjRcMlk1rdyIbntaBKeXTH6gUVxM67FgqSk4Kn6j+4xNOwkLI0xe3kInytvTyBCRuJQYl+6gfSnY/nx3s9sw2dJ/o2fTZsEkteYek= Received: by 83.161.120.155 with SMTP id q5mr719244qbp; Sat, 01 Apr 2006 11:39:46 -0800 (PST) Received: by 83.161.120.155 with HTTP; Sat, 1 Apr 2006 11:39:46 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <roger49@example.com> Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2006 21:39:46 +0200 From: "Martin Marinschek" <roger49@example.com> Reply-To: roger49@example.com To: "MyFaces Development" <roger49@example.com> Subject: Re: Committing new contributed components [was: Re: [jira] Closed: (TOMAHAWK-165) ifMessage tag that renders children only if there is a message for the specified component(s)] In-Reply-To: <W1932630600276381143819419@webmail19> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <W1932630600276381143819419@webmail19> X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Yes. Exadel integrated the components. I don't think it's a good idea either. regards, Martin On 3/31/06, Dennis Byrne <roger49@example.com> wrote: > >Btw. regarding the sandbox, I see it as a huge problem that some vendors > >have started to integrate the sandbox as component set into their tools. > > Whoa, really? Which ones? That's going to be expensive for someone. > > Dennis Byrne > > > -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces From roger49@example.com Sat Apr 01 19:41:41 2006 Return-Path: <roger49@example.com> Delivered-To: roger49@example.com Received: (qmail 7258 invoked from network); 1 Apr 2006 19:41:40 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 1 Apr 2006 19:41:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 22166 invoked by uid 500); 1 Apr 2006 19:41:39 -0000 Delivered-To: roger49@example.com Received: (qmail 21819 invoked by uid 500); 1 Apr 2006 19:41:38 -0000 Mailing-List: contact roger49@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: <mailto:roger49@example.com> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:roger49@example.com> List-Post: <mailto:roger49@example.com> List-Id: <dev.myfaces.apache.org> Reply-To: "MyFaces Development" <roger49@example.com> Delivered-To: mailing list roger49@example.com Received: (qmail 21808 invoked by uid 99); 1 Apr 2006 19:41:38 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 01 Apr 2006 11:41:38 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: local policy) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO moutng.kundenserver.de) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 01 Apr 2006 11:41:37 -0800 Received: from [83.161.120.155] (helo=[83.161.120.155]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (node=mrelayeu5) with ESMTP (Nemesis), id 0ML25U-1FPlyD22uG-0007lG; Sat, 01 Apr 2006 21:41:13 +0200 Message-ID: <roger49@example.com> Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2006 21:41:08 +0200 From: Bernd Bohmann <roger49@example.com> User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (X11/20051013) X-Accept-Language: de-DE, de, en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: MyFaces Development <roger49@example.com> Subject: Re: [TOBAGO] removing label attributes from components References: <roger49@example.com> <roger49@example.com> In-Reply-To: <roger49@example.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: kundenserver.de roger49@example.com login:d375d3d4b2098446dd325d8973b26ad4 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N I think we should remove it before a official release. Why we should keep it when it was never really released in public? If any user has any objection we can keep it for a short while. label has no meaning for In, Time, Date, SelectManyListbox, SelectOneChoice .... And in a JSF 1.2 compatible version it has a different meaning. What is the reason for don't delete it? Regards Bernd Udo Schnurpfeil schrieb: > Please do not remove it now. Keep it deprecated for a short while. > > And please keep the labelWithAccessKey and accessKey attributes also > as deprecated. > > Regards > > Udo > > > Volker Weber schrieb: > >> Hi, >> >> cc'ing to users@ to inform tobago users. >> >> I'm working on TOBAGO-10 (Combine the attributes label, >> labelWithAccessKey and accessKey to one attribute label). >> >> On many <tc:...> components, those where a <tx:...> component exists, >> the label attribute is already marked as deprecated. >> >> Any objections removing label attribute on those components now ? >> >> >> Regards, >> Volker > > -- Dipl.-Ing. Bernd Bohmann - Atanion GmbH - Software Development Bismarckstr. 13, 26122 Oldenburg, http://www.atanion.com phone: +1-623-717-1836, mobile: +1-623-717-1836, fax: +1-623-717-1836 From roger49@example.com Sat Apr 01 20:56:33 2006 Return-Path: <roger49@example.com> Delivered-To: roger49@example.com Received: (qmail 34553 invoked from network); 1 Apr 2006 20:56:32 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 1 Apr 2006 20:56:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 58486 invoked by uid 500); 1 Apr 2006 20:56:30 -0000 Delivered-To: roger49@example.com Received: (qmail 58441 invoked by uid 500); 1 Apr 2006 20:56:30 -0000 Mailing-List: contact roger49@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: <mailto:roger49@example.com> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:roger49@example.com> List-Post: <mailto:roger49@example.com> List-Id: <dev.myfaces.apache.org> Reply-To: "MyFaces Development" <roger49@example.com> Delivered-To: mailing list roger49@example.com Received: (qmail 58430 invoked by uid 99); 1 Apr 2006 20:56:30 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 01 Apr 2006 12:56:30 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of roger49@example.com designates 83.161.120.155 as permitted sender) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO smtp.ops.co.at) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 01 Apr 2006 12:56:28 -0800 Received: by smtp.ops.co.at (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 514FE23C0AF; Sat, 1 Apr 2006 22:56:05 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (mgate.int.ops.co.at [83.161.120.155]) by smtp.ops.co.at (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BBBB23C0A8 for <roger49@example.com>; Sat, 1 Apr 2006 22:56:02 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <roger49@example.com> Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2006 22:56:02 +0200 From: Mario Ivankovits <roger49@example.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (X11/20060111) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: MyFaces Development <roger49@example.com> Subject: Re: Detection of ExtensionsFilter - please check References: <W184842897114221143918739@webmail13> In-Reply-To: <W184842897114221143918739@webmail13> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.64 (2004-01-11) on smtp.ops.co.at X-Spam-Level: X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Old-Spam-Status: No, hits=-64.6 required=6.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RATWR10_MESSID, SMILEY,USER_IN_WHITELIST autolearn=ham version=2.64 X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Hi! > Oh well, let us know what you do ;) > What a nice run - its in now. Now, as soon as someone tries to access the AddResource stuff it will be checked if the ExtensionsFilter is correctly configured. This will be done by checking: 1) if the extensionsFilter were called within the current request 2) if the web.xml contains an extensionFilter config which is suitable to serve our resources for point 2) this is if 1) there is a filter with class org.apache.myfaces.component.html.util.ExtensionsFilter or org.apache.myfaces.webapp.filter.ExtensionsFilter 2) pointing to /faces/* or /faces/myFacesExtensionResource/* To make point 2 work I used the sax parser to parse the web.xml with an very minimalistic WebXmlHandler. The check will be done only once (per application) at the first request which calls AddResourceFactory.getInstance() Whats missing now is the wiki-page http://wiki.apache.org/myfaces/MyFacesExtensionsFilter where we describe how to configure the filter - maybe someone else can do this please. Or point me to a page where this has already been done - I just couldnt find one. The exception thrown points to this location. You can disable all the above checks (aka old behaviour) by adding org.apache.myfaces.CHECK_EXTENSIONS_FILTER = false to your web.xml context configuration. Ciao, Mario From roger49@example.com Sun Apr 02 00:32:23 2006 Return-Path: <roger49@example.com> Delivered-To: roger49@example.com Received: (qmail 92648 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2006 00:32:22 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 2 Apr 2006 00:32:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 77130 invoked by uid 500); 2 Apr 2006 00:32:21 -0000 Delivered-To: roger49@example.com Received: (qmail 77077 invoked by uid 500); 2 Apr 2006 00:32:20 -0000 Mailing-List: contact roger49@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: <mailto:roger49@example.com> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:roger49@example.com> List-Post: <mailto:roger49@example.com> List-Id: <dev.myfaces.apache.org> Reply-To: "MyFaces Development" <roger49@example.com> Delivered-To: mailing list roger49@example.com Received: (qmail 77066 invoked by uid 99); 2 Apr 2006 00:32:20 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 01 Apr 2006 16:32:20 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.3 required=10.0 tests=RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: local policy) Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO omr1.networksolutionsemail.com) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 01 Apr 2006 16:32:19 -0800 Received: from mail.networksolutionsemail.com (omr1.mgt.bos.netsol.com [83.161.120.155] (may be forged)) by omr1.networksolutionsemail.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id k320VuZj008351 for <roger49@example.com>; Sat, 1 Apr 2006 19:31:57 -0500 Received: (qmail 17837 invoked by uid 78); 2 Apr 2006 00:31:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO webmail9) (83.161.120.155) by 83.161.120.155 with SMTP; 2 Apr 2006 00:31:56 -0000 Received: from 83.161.120.155 (roger49@example.com [83.161.120.155]) by webmail9 (EdgeDesk 4.02) with WEBMAIL id 18831; Sun, 02 Apr 2006 00:31:56 +0000 From: "Dennis Byrne" <roger49@example.com> To: roger49@example.com Importance: Normal Sensitivity: Normal Message-ID: <W3763018506188311143937916@webmail9> X-Mailer: Mintersoft EdgeDesk, Build 4.03.0105 X-Originating-IP: [83.161.120.155] X-Forwarded-For: [(null)] Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2006 00:31:56 +0000 Subject: build broken MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N I got this build error on a clean co of "current". OK guys ;) No 1.5 stuff in core until JSF 1.2 ;) Dennis Byrne BTW - why didn't continuum catch this? [INFO] [compiler:compile] Compiling 287 source files to D:\co\current4\tomahawk\core\target\classes [INFO] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- [ERROR] BUILD FAILURE [INFO] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- [INFO] Compilation failure D:\co\current4\tomahawk\core\src\main\java\org\apache\myfaces\renderkit\html\util\AddResourceFactory.java:[373,32] cannot resolve symbol symbol : method setXIncludeAware (boolean) location: class javax.xml.parsers.SAXParserFactory Dennis Byrne From roger49@example.com Sun Apr 02 15:09:02 2006 Return-Path: <roger49@example.com> Delivered-To: roger49@example.com Received: (qmail 25501 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2006 15:09:01 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 2 Apr 2006 15:09:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 4739 invoked by uid 500); 2 Apr 2006 15:09:00 -0000 Delivered-To: roger49@example.com Received: (qmail 4677 invoked by uid 500); 2 Apr 2006 15:08:59 -0000 Mailing-List: contact roger49@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: <mailto:roger49@example.com> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:roger49@example.com> List-Post: <mailto:roger49@example.com> List-Id: <dev.myfaces.apache.org> Reply-To: "MyFaces Development" <roger49@example.com> Delivered-To: mailing list roger49@example.com Delivered-To: moderator for roger49@example.com Received: (qmail 91409 invoked by uid 99); 2 Apr 2006 06:10:19 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of roger49@example.com designates 83.161.120.155 as permitted sender) Message-ID: <roger49@example.com> Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2006 08:09:53 +0200 (CEST) From: Mario Ivankovits <roger49@example.com> To: MyFaces Development <roger49@example.com> Subject: Re: build broken In-Reply-To: <W3763018506188311143937916@webmail9> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (normal) X-Mailer: SuSE Linux Openexchange Server 4 - WebMail (Build 2.4160) X-Operating-System: Linux 2.4.21-306-default i386 (JVM 1.3.1_16) Organization: OPS EDV Vertriebsges.m.b.H. References: <W3763018506188311143937916@webmail9> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.64 (2004-01-11) on smtp.ops.co.at X-Spam-Level: X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Old-Spam-Status: No, hits=-64.7 required=6.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, LOCAL_SPAMSIGN_2,USER_IN_WHITELIST,X_OS autolearn=ham version=2.64 X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N > BTW - why didn't continuum catch this? It was in for a couble of hours, so maybe continuum didnt run in the meantime (given your mail time something around 3 hours ....) --- Mario From roger49@example.com Sun Apr 02 15:37:56 2006 Return-Path: <roger49@example.com> Delivered-To: roger49@example.com Received: (qmail 33915 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2006 15:37:56 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 2 Apr 2006 15:37:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 23409 invoked by uid 500); 2 Apr 2006 15:37:54 -0000 Delivered-To: roger49@example.com Received: (qmail 23367 invoked by uid 500); 2 Apr 2006 15:37:54 -0000 Mailing-List: contact roger49@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: <mailto:roger49@example.com> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:roger49@example.com> List-Post: <mailto:roger49@example.com> List-Id: <dev.myfaces.apache.org> Reply-To: "MyFaces Development" <roger49@example.com> Delivered-To: mailing list roger49@example.com Delivered-To: moderator for roger49@example.com Received: (qmail 91112 invoked by uid 99); 2 Apr 2006 06:08:35 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of roger49@example.com designates 83.161.120.155 as permitted sender) Message-ID: <roger49@example.com> Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2006 08:08:08 +0200 (CEST) From: Mario Ivankovits <roger49@example.com> To: MyFaces Development <roger49@example.com> Subject: Re: build broken In-Reply-To: <W3763018506188311143937916@webmail9> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (normal) X-Mailer: SuSE Linux Openexchange Server 4 - WebMail (Build 2.4160) X-Operating-System: Linux 2.4.21-306-default i386 (JVM 1.3.1_16) Organization: OPS EDV Vertriebsges.m.b.H. References: <W3763018506188311143937916@webmail9> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.64 (2004-01-11) on smtp.ops.co.at X-Spam-Level: X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Old-Spam-Status: No, hits=-62.0 required=6.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, LOCAL_SPAMSIGN_2,SMILEY,USER_IN_WHITELIST,X_OS autolearn=ham version=2.64 X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N > I got this build error on a clean co of "current". > > OK guys ;) No 1.5 stuff in core until JSF 1.2 ;) Ooops, sorry. Shoudnt use 1.5 for development ... damn newbie fault :-( I've seen you already fixed it. Thanks! Ciao, Mario From roger49@example.com Sun Apr 02 16:14:11 2006 Return-Path: <roger49@example.com> Delivered-To: roger49@example.com Received: (qmail 47069 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2006 16:14:10 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 2 Apr 2006 16:14:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 49082 invoked by uid 500); 2 Apr 2006 16:14:08 -0000 Delivered-To: roger49@example.com Received: (qmail 49032 invoked by uid 500); 2 Apr 2006 16:14:08 -0000 Mailing-List: contact roger49@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: <mailto:roger49@example.com> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:roger49@example.com> List-Post: <mailto:roger49@example.com> List-Id: <dev.myfaces.apache.org> Reply-To: "MyFaces Development" <roger49@example.com> Delivered-To: mailing list roger49@example.com Received: (qmail 49021 invoked by uid 99); 2 Apr 2006 16:14:08 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 02 Apr 2006 09:14:08 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received: from [83.161.120.155] (HELO ajax.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 02 Apr 2006 09:14:07 -0700 Received: from ajax (localhost.localdomain [83.161.120.155]) by ajax.apache.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1E026ACB3 for <roger49@example.com>; Sun, 2 Apr 2006 17:13:46 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <1859335854.1143994426922.JavaMail.jira@ajax> Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2006 17:13:46 +0100 (BST) From: "Martin Marinschek (JIRA)" <roger49@example.com> To: roger49@example.com Subject: [jira] Commented: (TOMAHAWK-224) Making Ajax components work properly in dataTables In-Reply-To: <+1-623-717-1836.1143817148418.JavaMail.jira@ajax> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N [ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TOMAHAWK-224?page=3Dcomments#act= ion_12372836 ]=20 Martin Marinschek commented on TOMAHAWK-224: -------------------------------------------- Just to clear up the confusion. NO, I haven't implemented what Jacob got into JSF 1.2. so far. NO, we can't implement it without breaking the TCK, as the TCK checks for a= ll public and protected methods and their signatures in a very exhaustive t= est, and won't allow an added one which shouldn't be there. So if we want to implement this, the TCK will need to be changed. regards, Martin > Making Ajax components work properly in dataTables > -------------------------------------------------- > > Key: TOMAHAWK-224 > URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TOMAHAWK-224 > Project: MyFaces Tomahawk > Type: Improvement > Versions: 1.1.2-SNAPSHOT > Reporter: Gerald M=C3=BCllan > Assignee: Martin Marinschek > Priority: Minor > Fix For: 1.1.2-SNAPSHOT > Attachments: ajaxDecodePhaseListener.patch > > This patch solves the problem of seeking ajax components if they are loca= ted inside dataTables. > Patch affects AjaxDecodePhaseListener. --=20 This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa - For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira From roger49@example.com Sun Apr 02 16:32:11 2006 Return-Path: <roger49@example.com> Delivered-To: roger49@example.com Received: (qmail 54957 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2006 16:32:09 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (83.161.120.155) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 2 Apr 2006 16:32:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 66513 invoked by uid 500); 2 Apr 2006 16:32:08 -0000 Delivered-To: roger49@example.com Received: (qmail 66461 invoked by uid 500); 2 Apr 2006 16:32:07 -0000 Mailing-List: contact roger49@example.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: <mailto:roger49@example.com> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:roger49@example.com> List-Post: <mailto:roger49@example.com> List-Id: <dev.myfaces.apache.org> Reply-To: "MyFaces Development" <roger49@example.com> Delivered-To: mailing list roger49@example.com Received: (qmail 66450 invoked by uid 99); 2 Apr 2006 16:32:07 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (83.161.120.155) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 02 Apr 2006 09:32:07 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No,
{'source': 'Apache Software Foundation Public Mail Archives'}