| 
Hi Rudy,   A couple of things come to mind.    
Each scope would only be included when the customer actually wants to use itIf you want to deliver an alternative implementation you can do so easilyIt would make sure the scope is only using public Faces / CDI APIsWe 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 BusscherSent: 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
 |