yeah, sort of. there are currently (mainly for JSF 1.1) tons of "JSF-Bridges" -Apache MyFaces Core (not Tomahawk ;-) ) -Apache Portals Bridges (they have that for old school struts as well) -Suns RI has a module for JSF-Portlet integration -,,,
so, this one "fixes" that. It's a standard javax. .... and just an impl (that does what the papers want (or tries ;-) )) -M On 8/17/07, Alexander Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ok.. but with this bridge and the right version of myfaces you would > not need something like the tomahawk bridge any more... > > thanks a bunch! > > On Aug 17, 2007, at 10:54 AM, Matthias Wessendorf wrote: > > > there was no real tomahawk bridge. > > that stuff is part of myfaces 1.1 (the core impl) > > > > the difference here is that 301 specifies a way, how a JSF 1.2 > > application should work inside a portal. > > > > for jsf 1.1 there was "just" a note like "JSF 1.1 should run in a > > portlet..." (very simplified statement) > > > > So, no not a replacement, "just" an IMPL of the java SPEC ;-) > > > > On 8/17/07, Alexander Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Does this bridge replace Tomahawk bridge? > >> > >> On Aug 17, 2007, at 10:39 AM, Scott O'Bryan wrote: > >> > >>> Sounds good to me. Should we open up a discussion though on > >>> "where" this should be committed so that we can hit the ground > >>> running once the paperwork is listed? > >>> > >>> Scott > >>> > >>> Matthias Wessendorf wrote: > >>>> On 8/17/07, Scott O'Bryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Hey everyone. After tearing though the bureaucracy much slower > >>>>> then I > >>>>> would have liked, I uploaded the code to MYFACES-1664 for the > >>>>> JSR-301 > >>>>> Portlet Bridge. This code should comply with the latest public > >>>>> draft of > >>>>> the JSR-301 specification and, once we figure out where to put > >>>>> this and > >>>>> get it made available in svn, I'd like to see people get their > >>>>> hands on > >>>>> it and try it out. It is going to change some things (for the > >>>>> better I > >>>>> hope), but if there are any unresolvable issues with it, my hope > >>>>> is that > >>>>> we can get those concerns voiced so that we can incorporate them > >>>>> into > >>>>> the final draft. > >>>>> > >>>>> That said, what are our next steps? > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> we have to wait with the commit, until that the paperworks > >>>> (Schedule > >>>> B) is listed here: > >>>> http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html > >>>> > >>>> -M > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> Scott > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > Matthias Wessendorf > > > > further stuff: > > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ > > mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org > > > > -- Matthias Wessendorf further stuff: blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org