Ugh!!
I still think the benefits you mentioned do not outweigh the
benefit of not confusing our users :) You do make a valid point
regarding compatibility, but I don't see why we can't stick with
MyFaces 1.2.x and have all the component libs follow the same
version numbers ? I guess I don't fully appreciate why the "minor"
version number and the "fix" version number have to be separated:
MyFaces 1.2.0 --> Initial JSF 1.2 compliant release.
MyFaces 1.2.1 --> Bugfix release
MyFaces 1.2.2 --> Some Bugs Fixed, and Included New Technology
that Promotes World Peace.
We'll still have the "Compatibility Matrix" which states which
component libs are compatible, etc...
On 5/18/07, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
thank you!
On 5/18/07, Manfred Geiler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Like Paul Spencer I'm also still
> +1
> for
> MyFaces 1.x.y --> JSF 1.1
> MyFaces 2.x.y --> JSF 1.2
> MyFaces 3.x.y --> JSF 2.0
> MyFaces 4.x.y --> JSF whatever comes next
>
> Here is my explanation for the "why":
> This one is similar to Tomcat version numbering and I do not
remember
> anyone complaining about having a Tomcat 5.x that is an
implementaion
> of Servlet 2.4 and Tomcat 6.x being a Servlet 2.5 container.
> If there will be a "release vs. spec table" on the MyFaces Homepage
> (like the one on http://tomcat.apache.org/) nobody will ever be
> confused.
> The big advantage of having (only) the major number aligned to the
> spec is the degree of freedom with minor (x) and fix (y) number.
It is
> a well known and successful pattern to have this major.minor.fix
> version numbering scheme. With the 1.2.x versioning on the other
hand,
> how could we ever differentiate between a minor release (with new
> features and maybe slightly changed API for non-spec stuff) and a
bug
> fix only release, if we may only count the last number up?!
> Remember the Tomcat jump from 5.0.x to 5.5.x when they did a
complete
> rewriting of the core stuff? How could they ever have expressed that
> in version numbering if they had stolidly aligned their tomcat
version
> to the servlet spec 2.4?
>
> And do not forget:
> There is not only the implementation. There are 3 component libs
under
> the MyFaces umbrella. And IMHO it is much more important to align
all
> the myfaces stuff (compatible to each other) within one major number
> (2.x) than aligning all the stuff to the spec version. For the
> component libs it is even more important to have that degree of
> freedom for counting up a minor number whenever there is an API
change
> and let the minor number unchanged for a bug fix release.
> MyFaces is getting more and more important. Also for tool
vendors. So
> there will be more and more people and stuff out there who/that
relies
> on our APIs. We should be oblivious to this responsibility.
>
> Sorry, but this is my binding
> -1 veto
> on having 1.2.x for our next spec 1.2 implementation as long as the
> only reason for having 1.2.x is a "cosmetic" reason only to help
> people not being confused.
> Perhaps I missed something. If so, please explain to me what is a
> proper technical or organizational or consequential reason for
having
> 1.2.x as version for our next major (sic!) release.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Manfred
>
>
>
>
> On 5/18/07, Kito D. Mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > +1 for 1.2
> >
> > -1 for 2.0
> >
> >
> >
> > Using a "2.0" version is going to confuse people.
> >
> >
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > Kito D. Mann - Author, JavaServer Faces in Action
> > http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info
> >
> >
> >
> > * Sign up for the JSF Central newsletter!
> > http://oi.vresp.com/?fid=ac048d0e17 *
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Grant Smith [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 1:16 PM
> > To: MyFaces Development
> > Subject: Re: MyFaces 2.0.0 (was Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > +1 for 1.2
> > -1 for 2.0
> >
> >
> > On 5/18/07, Mathias Brökelmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> > +1 for 1.2
> >
> > 2007/5/18, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >:
> > > So,
> > >
> > > any interest in making this to 2.0.0 ?
> > >
> > > -Matthias
> > >
> > > On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > ...
> > > > I am
> > > > +1 for Paul's suggestion:
> > > > JSF 1.1 -> MyFaces 1.x
> > > > JSF 1.2 -> MyFaces 2.x
> > > >
> > > > and I am
> > > > +1 for JSF 2.0 (or JSF6 or whatever) -> MyFaces 3.x
> > >
> > > > --Manfred
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Mathias
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Grant Smith
>
>
> --
> http://www.irian.at
> Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting,
> Development and Courses in English and
> German
>
> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
>
--
Matthias Wessendorf
http://tinyurl.com/fmywh
further stuff:
blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
--
Grant Smith
