Hey David,
On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 10:32 PM, David Jencks
<david_jen...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I'm afraid there is still a lot of confusion about the proposed
patch. The
comments don't appear to me to relate to the patch. I'm not sure
how to
proceed other than through excessive and rather obnoxious
repetition, for
which I apologize.
:-) No worries
If there is some more information I could provide to
clear things up please let me know what it is. I could provide
before-and-after manifest.mf but in my experience these are really
hard to
see what is going on in due to the rather opaque formatting rules,
I think
the maven-bundle-plugin configuration from the patch is a lot
clearer.
+1 on a patch
On Dec 22, 2009, at 2:26 PM, Scott O'Bryan wrote:
I think I agree with Matthias that this may be problematic. If you
compile
something against Servlet 3.0 classes, you very well may run into
some
runtime issues if you then try to use those binaries in a Servlet
2.5 type
environment. You generally *WILL NOT* run into problems if you do
the
reverse.
True, but irrelevant to the change proposed in the patch. The
patch does
not change any dependencies.
I think that was misunderstood ?
Now that's not to say it's impossible. Trinidad, for instance,
builds
against the Portlet 2.0 jars yet we work in Portlet 1.0 as well,
but we had
to use a bunch of proxy objects attached to interfaces and a lot of
reflection to get this to work correctly.
I guess I'm wondering what issue you have right now with the
current
dependencies.
None, I'm not proposing changing any dependencies.
I think it is now more clear
Just because myfaces depends on Servlet 2.5 does not mean that
geronimo
can't depend on Servlet 3.0. They should both be "provided"
dependencies.
The patch does not relate to maven dependencies in any way.
Yes, correct
If you *DO* need Servlet 3.0 support as a library, I would suggest
adding it
as a profile which DOES NOT run by default.. Just my $.02..
A profile would not be able to affect this issue, since we need
different
osgi metadata in the published jars. We don't care what myfaces
builds
against.
fair enough :-)
So, here's the patch:
Index: impl/pom.xml
===================================================================
--- impl/pom.xml (revision 892639)
+++ impl/pom.xml (working copy)
@@ -223,13 +223,13 @@
javax.ejb;resolution:=optional,
javax.el;version="[1.0.0, 3.0.0)",
javax.naming,
- javax.persistence;version="[1.0.0,
2.0.0)";resolution:=optional,
- javax.portlet;version="[1.0.0,
2.0.0)";resolution:=optional,
- javax.servlet;version="[2.5.0, 3.0.0)",
- javax.servlet.http;version="[2.5.0, 3.0.0)",
- javax.servlet.jsp;version="[2.1.0, 3.0.0)",
+ javax.persistence;version="[1.0.0,
2.1)";resolution:=optional,
+ javax.portlet;version="[1.0.0,
2.1)";resolution:=optional,
+ javax.servlet;version="[2.5.0, 3.1)",
+ javax.servlet.http;version="[2.5.0, 3.1)",
+ javax.servlet.jsp;version="[2.1.0, 3.1)",
javax.servlet.jsp.jstl.core;version="[1.1.2,
2.0.0)",
- javax.servlet.jsp.tagext;version="[2.1.0,
3.0.0)",
+ javax.servlet.jsp.tagext;version="[2.1.0, 3.1)",
javax.xml.parsers,
org.apache;resolution:=optional,
org.apache.commons.beanutils;version="[1.7.0,
2.0.0)",
Index: api/pom.xml
===================================================================
--- api/pom.xml (revision 892639)
+++ api/pom.xml (working copy)
@@ -221,12 +221,12 @@
</Export-Package>
<Import-Package>
javax.el;version="[1.0.0, 3.0.0)",
- javax.servlet;version="[2.5.0, 3.0.0)",
- javax.servlet.http;version="[2.5.0, 3.0.0)",
- javax.servlet.jsp;version="[2.1.0, 3.0.0)",
+ javax.servlet;version="[2.5.0, 3.1)",
+ javax.servlet.http;version="[2.5.0, 3.1)",
+ javax.servlet.jsp;version="[2.1.0, 3.1)",
javax.servlet.jsp.jstl.core;version="[1.1.2,
2.0.0)",
javax.servlet.jsp.jstl.sql;version="[1.1.2,
2.0.0)",
- javax.servlet.jsp.tagext;version="[2.1.0,
3.0.0)",
+ javax.servlet.jsp.tagext;version="[2.1.0, 3.1)",
org.apache.commons.logging;version="[1.1.1,
2.0.0)",
javax.faces.*;version="${project.version}"
</Import-Package>
I think it's fairly clear that this does not change the maven
dependencies
or what myfaces is building against. All it does is allow myfaces
to be
used in an osgi environment with a servlet 3 spec jar. That is
currently
not possible. This is blocking geronimo-myfaces 2 integration. I
can't
imagine any scenario that currently works that this proposed change
would
affect, all it does is allow myfaces to be used in more
environments. If
you think this change will prevent a currently working scenario
from working
please explain what it is and how.
I think I am totally fine on the <Import-Package> changes.
Let me give your patch a try.
David, thanks for bugging you on that, again.
-Matthias
thanks
david jencks
Scott
David Jencks wrote:
Matthias,
I'm not sure you understand what Ivan is requesting. The osgi
package
version metadata does not specify what jar myfaces is built
against, but
does restrict which package versions myfaces can be used with in an
osgi
environment. While the osgi package version metadata is not part
of javaee
specs, there seems to be general agreement that the spec version
should be
used as the package version for api jars. So, in order for myfaces
to be
used in a javee 6 environment, it needs to allow wiring to a
servlet 3.0
spec jar. That doesn't mean that you need to build myfaces
against a
servlet 3 jar, nor does it prevent myfaces from working with
servlet 2.5
spec jars in, say, a javaee 5 environment.
I'd appreciate it if someone could update trunk for this so we can
continue
with integrating myfaces 2 in geronimo. I've attached a suitable
patch to
MYFACES-2290 as
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12428613/allow-ee6-versioned-apis.diff
With this patch we can at least start a server that has loaded
myfaces 2.
Hopefully soon we'll be able to run the ee6 version of the tck.
many thanks
david jencks
On Nov 26, 2009, at 6:23 AM, Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
Ivan,
we can't use servlet 3.0.0 yet. Not yet final ...
and jsf 2.0 has _no_ dependency to it...
-Matthias
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 3:17 PM, Ivan <xhh...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi, is it possible to update the accepted servlet spec version to
3.0.0 in
the configurations of maven-bundle-plugin?
Thanks !
2009/11/26 Werner Punz <werner.p...@gmail.com>
+1
Leonardo Uribe schrieb:
Hi,
I was running the needed tasks to get the 2.0.0-alpha release of
Apache
MyFaces core out.
Please note that this vote concerns all of the following parts:
1. Maven artifact group "org.apache.myfaces.shared" v4.0.1-alpha
[1]
2. Maven artifact group "org.apache.myfaces.test" v1.0.0-alpha [1]
3. Maven artifact group "org.apache.myfaces.core" v2.0.0-alpha
[1]
The artifacts are deployed to my private Apache account ([1] and
[3]
for binary and source packages).
The release notes could be found at [4].
Also the clirr test does not show binary incompatibilities with
myfaces-api.
Please take a look at the "2.0.0-alpha" artifacts and vote!
Please note: This vote is "majority approval" with a minimum of
three
+1 votes (see [3]).
------------------------------------------------
[ ] +1 for community members who have reviewed the bits
[ ] +0
[ ] -1 for fatal flaws that should cause these bits not to be
released,
and why..............
------------------------------------------------
Thanks,
Leonardo Uribe
[1] http://people.apache.org/~lu4242/myfaces200alpha
[2] http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#ReleaseVotes
[3] http://people.apache.org/~lu4242/myfaces200alphabinsrc
[4]
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=10600&styleName=Html&version=12313389
--
Ivan
--
Matthias Wessendorf
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
--
Matthias Wessendorf
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
