Done... (mostly). See my comment in the JIRA ticket.
Scott O'Bryan wrote:
Yeah, I agree. I'll try to get that as soon as I can, but it's good
to know it won't hold up the committing. :)
Scott
Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
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
