Leonardo Uribe schrieb: > > > On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 2:45 PM, Leonardo Uribe <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 10:58 AM, Simon Kitching > <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > Leonardo Uribe schrieb: > > Hi, > > > > I was running the needed tasks to get the 1.1.8 release of > Apache > > MyFaces Tomahawk out. > > Some initial test results: > > The tomahawk-1.1.8 jar works well with Facelets + > Mojarra1.2.0_09 + java1.6. > > For the "staging repo" files deployed here: > http://people.apache.org/~lu4242/tomahawk118 > <http://people.apache.org/%7Elu4242/tomahawk118> > <http://people.apache.org/%7Elu4242/tomahawk118> > The binary jar license, manifest all look ok. > Checksums all look ok. > > Oddly, the NOTICE file in the binary jarfile has nothing but the > standard ASF claim. However the NOTICE in the source jar has a > lot more > credits in it. Looks like the NOTICE in the binary file could > be wrong... > > And on both NOTICE files, it says "copyright 2004-2007" which > should > probably be updated. > > > That's strange but true, the notice should be the same for all. > I'll take a look. > > > > The problem was a override when unpacking shared tomahawk sources. > This was fixed and updated the part of copyright to "copyright > 2004-2008". The new artifacts will be generated after the question > about optional dependency to commons is solved. > > > > > I'm not convinced about this change to the tomahawk pom: > > <!-- Transitive dependency from commons-fileupload. > in 1.2 it was declared optional, but t:inputFileUpload > uses it indirectly, so it is necessary to include it > in our pom as runtime dependency --> > <dependency> > <groupId>commons-io</groupId> > <artifactId>commons-io</artifactId> > <version>1.3.2</version> > <scope>runtime</scope> > </dependency> > > I think that this should indeed be an optional dependency; if > someone > wants to use Tomahawk but not use the t:inputFileUpload, then > why should > we force commons-io to be included in their classpath? > > > This change was introduced on 1.1.7, since from commons-io 1.2, > this library was marked as optional. From other point of view if > someone does not want commons-io to be included in their classpath > he/she can exclude it. Good question. In my opinion one or other > it is the same (read it as +0 taking the + to let it as is), but I > prefer add to the classpath by default because if not, every user > of t:inputFileUpload must add this dependency by hand. It could be > good to have a community point of view about it. > > > In my opinion, it is more easier use this for exclude commons-io > dependency: > > <dependency> > <groupId>org.apache.myfaces.tomahawk</groupId> > <artifactId>tomahawk</artifactId> > > <version>1.1.8</version> > <exclusions> > <exclusion> > <groupId>commons-io</groupId> > <artifactId>commons-io</artifactId> > </exclusion> > </exclusions> > > </dependency> > > In the other case, you need to find the proper version of commons-io > (requires that users check tomahawk 1.1.8 pom) and add it as > dependency if the user wants to use t:inputFileUpload.
Ok, I'm convinced, particularly as this change was already in 1.1.7. So no objection from me on the commons-io dependency. Regards, Simon -- -- Emails in "mixed" posting style will be ignored -- (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style)
