On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 1:21 AM, Simon Lessard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > Yes you can, but make sure to create a JIRA ticket for every change. You'll > find that most new classes and methods are already there though, but some > new ones just popped with the public review version.
it is great to see more and more active folks here! -Matthias > > > Regards, > > ~ Simon > > On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 12:46 PM, Jan-Kees van Andel > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> All right, in that case, shall I start implementing those new API classes? >> >> I'm sure there's little fun for you guys in implementing all those >> interfaces/etc. ;-) >> >> /Jan-Kees >> >> >> 2008/11/29 Simon Lessard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> > Hi Jan-Kees, >> > >> > MyFaces has its own version of the javax.faces.8 within myfaces-api.jar >> > file. That file obviously has the same content as Mojarra's, but with >> > different code and thus a different bug/peformance base. However I must >> > admit that most difference reside within the -impl >> > >> > >> > Regards, >> > >> > ~ Simon >> > >> > On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 6:38 PM, Jan-Kees van Andel >> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi all, >> >> >> >> It might be a stupid question, but where does the MyFaces javax.faces >> >> codebase come from? Is it copied straight from Mojarra? Or does this >> >> cause >> >> licensing issues and must all files be created by hand, based on the >> >> spec? >> >> >> >> A.t.m., many of the new classes, like the pdl.facelets package are >> >> missing. >> >> >> >> If you guys want, I can start adding them to myfaces2 if it needs to be >> >> done by hand. >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Jan-Kees >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 2008/11/27 Simon Lessard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >>> >> >>> I don't think just dropping the code will be enough. There are some >> >>> contract difference between Facelets and Facelets in JSF 2.0. Although >> >>> they're mostly compatible, some interfaces were added (see pdl) and >> >>> the >> >>> createView contract was changed as well (forcing full tree population >> >>> that >> >>> doesn't seem to be the case in Facelets code atm). >> >>> >> >>> Furthermore, imho it's quite healthy to fork the code as it's going to >> >>> start an improvement "competition" between Mojarra's Facelets and our >> >>> Facelets, much like what happened when MyFaces was first implemented, >> >>> much >> >>> faster than RI at the time, forcing the latter to improve their own >> >>> code and >> >>> so on. >> >>> >> >>> That being said, if the community feels like we should limit the >> >>> amount >> >>> of changes as much as possible (to include Facelets updates and bug >> >>> fixes >> >>> every now and then for example), I could also abide to that. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Regards, >> >>> >> >>> ~ Simon >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 3:26 AM, Werner Punz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >>> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> Kito Mann schrieb: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Hey Simon, >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Just curious: are you guys implementing Facelets from scratch? >> >>>>> >> >>>> I have not had a look yet at the current codebase, but to my >> >>>> knowledge >> >>>> facelets itself has been relizenced under ASF2 >> >>>> I would suggest just for the sake of keeping the compatibility close >> >>>> no reimplementation just drag the code over, dont change the packages >> >>>> if possible so that we at least there have a shared codebase. >> >>>> It just does not make sense to do a full reimplementation or >> >>>> to fork the code, since there are no political issues between the RI >> >>>> and >> >>>> MyFaces, on the contrary we have an excellent relationship! >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Werner >> >>>> >> >>> >> >> >> > >> > > > -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
