but all this, can be fixed, when it's already committed. We needed NOTICE and LICENSE files inside both JARs as well.
-M On 8/17/07, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > yes pom as well. > > and also files in: > -META-INF/services/ > -META-INF/ > > @myfaces: a bug .... > > On 8/17/07, Scott O'Bryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hey, it looks like I did the impl, just not the API. I'm fixing that now. > > > > That said, does the liscence need to be in the POM files? I didn't > > notice a liscence in the MyFaces 1.2 POM files... I have no problems > > putting it in, certainly, but we may want to make the 1.2 branch of > > MyFaces compliant with this as well. > > > > Scott > > > > Matthias Wessendorf wrote: > > > Hey Scott, > > > > > > did a quick look. > > > POMs and API .java class have to contain the Apache 2.0 license as well. > > > > > > Greetings, > > > Matthias > > > > > > PS: build runs .... :-) > > > > > > On 8/17/07, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 > -- Matthias Wessendorf further stuff: blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
