It is a discussion about the core - I am only trying to establish WHY there are two schools of thought on this - refer to Manfred's post to this thread on May 18th.
Cheers, Z. On 5/21/07, Mike Kienenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I thought we were simply discussing MyFaces Core. Let me clarify my vote: +1 1.2 MyFaces Core for JSF 1.2. -1 2.0 MyFaces Core for JSF 1.2. Don't care for Tomahawk/Trinidad/Tobago. These are no longer tightly-coupled to a specific MyFaces core release, and should use whatever versions make the most sense. This is already true for "shared", Trinidad, and Tobago. It's going to happen anyway for Tomahawk once Myfaces 1.2 becomes trunk since Myfaces 1.1 releases are going to be few and far between once the majority of committers have switched to 1.2. While there have been matching releases for Tomahawk and Core up to this point, this has been due to the elimination of the previous coupling between Core and Tomahawk (a process that was more involved and took longer than anyone expected). For tomahawk, my "don't care" suggestion for versioning would be to use the same version as "shared" as long as that makes sense. On 5/21/07, Zubin Wadia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There will always be an impedence mismatch here because MyFaces no longer > represents the "Spec" but also various component projects. So I see > Manfred/Matze's point. > > This is why I have always advocated letting the Component initiatives reign > alone in terms of their version order, release frequency and alignment with > MyFaces and/or the Sun RI. > > And to think that we have the same exposure as the Tomcat community is > pushing it. We are nowhere near as big as them - yet. > > So while they can start naming their releases after varieties of Hibiscus > flowers in the future - we can't. > > I'm still +1 on 1.2. > > Cheers, > > Zubin. > > > On 5/21/07, Bruno Aranda <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > +1 for 1.2 > > -1 for 2.0 > > > > I do agree that using 2.0 may cause confusion, as unlike what happens > > with tomcat, there will be a future version 2.0 of the spec when > > myfaces 2.0 is there already. People, unaware of the versioning > > procedure of the myfaces project, will go and fetch this version > > thinking that it is the implementation of jsf 2.0. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Bruno > > > > On 21/05/07, Mike Kienenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > +1 for 1.2. > > > -1 for 2.0. > > > > > > I see no advantage to using major version numbers which differ from > > > the spec. I see the disadvantage of confusion. > > > > > > Also, Manfred, you can have a -1 vote on this issue, but not a veto. > > > > > > "Vetos only apply to code changes; they do not apply to procedural > > > issues such as software releases." > > > http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html > > > > > > See also > > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/200606.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > >
