S> can you elaborate on the reasons to remove the FaceletFactory-API
S> altogether? The context param "com.sun.faces.faceletFactory" was also
S> removed, which was pretty crucial to my application. What would you
S> suggest to use instead? I am relying on creating a single Facelet
S> programmatically while delegating the creation of all other Facelets
S> to the DefaultFaceletFactory.
We decided to remove it because it wasn't possible to cleanly decorate
it. There were leaking abstractions.
FC> So Mojarra will 2.2 will not be compatible to 2.1?
When it comes to com.sun.faces parameters that are not a part of the
spec, there is no guarantee that it will be compatible across releases.
S> I read Leonardo Uribes concerns, but I don't think that adding
S> Application.createComponent(context, taglibURI, tagName, attributes)
S> is enough to remove the FaceletFactory interface altogether.
S> TagHandlers, so the concerns of Leonardo regarding duplicate or
S> missing IDs don't apply, since the Tags never generate a UIComponent.
I see your point, but I must give appropriate weight to Leonardo's
comments as he is the lead implementor of MyFaces.
S> So Mojarra 2.2 will not be compatible to 2.1 if you used the context
S> parameter com.sun.faces.faceletFactory to delegate the
JZ> If FacelteFactory is removed, I can not find a way to turn a xhtml
JZ> fragment into component.
Ahh, I see what happened here.
When I initially implemented the standardized attempt at FaceletFactory,
in r9371, I removed the context param, since if it was standardized it would no longer be necessary.
r9381 | edburns | 2011-09-15 11:36:09 -0400 (Thu, 15 Sep 2011) | 128 lines
Expose FaceletFactory and a wrapper for same http://java.net/jira/browse/JAVASERVERFACES_SPEC_PUBLIC-611
This commit replaces two tests with one, thereby reducing the
expected.passed.test.count by one. Please update the hudson builds
- Remove supoprt for the com.sun.faces.faceletFactory config param.
But when I removed the standardized FaceletFactory, in r11053, I didn't
put back the context param.
Would you be satisfied if I just put it back and it worked as in 2.1?