Wrong rendering of inputFile inside panelFormLayout
---
Key: TRINIDAD-1327
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TRINIDAD-1327
Project: MyFaces Trinidad
Issue Type: Bug
Hi Jan-Kees,
Yeah I saw the patches, thanks for that. I'll check them in/comment them on
Wednesday evening which is my JSF 2.0 day.
Regards,
~ Simon
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 1:24 PM, Jan-Kees van Andel
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From my point of view, it's nice to do something back to the
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MYFACES-2083?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12652313#action_12652313
]
Jan-Kees van Andel commented on MYFACES-2083:
-
I think it was added in EDR 2,
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MYFACES-2083?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12652325#action_12652325
]
Werner Punz commented on MYFACES-2083:
--
Ok thanks Jan
I will clear this up when I
Hi
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 7:24 PM, Jan-Kees van Andel
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From my point of view, it's nice to do something back to the
community, instead of only using MyFaces...
I've been implementing some classes yesterday. Created a Jira ticket
for all of them (sometimes grouped
tc:script component not working with facelets
-
Key: TOBAGO-729
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TOBAGO-729
Project: MyFaces Tobago
Issue Type: Bug
Components: Core
Affects
Hello same here I wanted to check in the patches on Wednesday which
currently is my JSF 2.0 day as well...
So we might be able to share the work.
Btw. Jan have you signed the CLI or CLA already?
Unfortunately we have to be a little bit nitpicky about having this
signed not to get into legal
unnecessary final methods in ApplicationImpl (maybe elsewhere too)
--
Key: MYFACES-2100
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MYFACES-2100
Project: MyFaces Core
Issue
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MYFACES-2100?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12652437#action_12652437
]
Simon Lessard commented on MYFACES-2100:
final was added to a lot for method in
hello jan-kees,
first of all: thank you for your contributions!
i had a quick look at some of your patches.
and i compared them with the snapshot version of mojarra + the javadoc [1]
the patches i compared look similar to the current source code of the
snapshot (method order, var names,...) and
Hi
Just one minor comment (I didn't now it): public review for jsf 2.0 is now
available at:
http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=314
regards
Leonardo Uribe
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 1:20 PM, Gerhard Petracek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
hello jan-kees,
first of all: thank you for your contributions!
Hi Gerhard:
I used the JavaDocs that come with the spec (downloaded it from the
JCP site). Since everyone uses the same spec, I thought using the
official JavaDocs would be the correct way to do things. I haven't
looked at Mojarra when coding the JavaDocs, but my guess is that the
JavaDocs that
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 8:18 PM, Jan-Kees van Andel
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Gerhard:
I used the JavaDocs that come with the spec (downloaded it from the
JCP site). Since everyone uses the same spec, I thought using the
official JavaDocs would be the correct way to do things. I haven't
Hmmm taking the JavaDoc's markup directly from Mojarra is wrong, but
recreating it with the same result is permitted right?
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 2:32 PM, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 8:18 PM, Jan-Kees van Andel
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Gerhard:
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 8:36 PM, Simon Lessard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmmm taking the JavaDoc's markup directly from Mojarra is wrong, but
recreating it with the same result is permitted right?
yes.
I think we had that discussion already in the past.
I think Grant did some volunteering in
Well, to get rid of all confusion, this is what I did.
I downloaded the spec to know what should be implemented.
After that, I scanned the JavaDocs for changes and held them next to
the MyFaces codebase (working from top to bottom). Where I found a
change, I looked at the JavaDocs for the
Ok, good, because I have one teammate doing specifically that (which is,
happily for me, not myself).
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 2:40 PM, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 8:36 PM, Simon Lessard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hmmm taking the JavaDoc's markup directly
You know what? Just to be on the safe side, I can remove the JavaDocs
and create some new patches without any. I delete the other patches
that might be dangerous.
That way, there should be no problems. As a short term solution, we
can just link to the official JavaDocs until we have our own...
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MYFACES-1493?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12652484#action_12652484
]
Sanjeev commented on MYFACES-1493:
--
I was wondering if we have anything for styling the
Javadoc update for method Object getFactory(String factoryName) of
FactoryFinder class
--
Key: MYFACES-2101
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MYFACES-2101
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MYFACES-2101?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Marc De Lafontaine updated MYFACES-2101:
Status: Patch Available (was: Open)
Javadoc update for method Object
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MYFACES-2085?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Simon Lessard updated MYFACES-2085:
---
Resolution: Fixed
Fix Version/s: 2.0.0-alpha
Status: Resolved (was:
Hi all,
It seems that checkstyle doesn't like JSF's official JavaDoc. Personally I
would give higher priority to completed comments than checkstyle whining,
what you guys think about it?
Regards,
~ Simon
Class: javax.faces.application.Application Method :public UIComponent
createComponent(FacesContext context,Resource componentResource)
Key:
To be more precise checkstyle whines about missing @param and @return, which
is theoretically nice. However, JSF's JavaDoc is broken and doesn't
specifies those most of the time, so the question is is it better to match
the official API or to make checkstyle happy?
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 6:33 PM,
Implement JSF 2.0 logic for UIComponent createComponent(FacesContext context,
String componentType, String rendererType)
Key: MYFACES-2103
Implement JSF 2.0 logic for UIComponent
createComponent(javax.el.ValueExpression componentExpression, FacesContext
context, String componentType, String rendererType)
Hi Jan-Kees,
Yes, it sounds good.
~ Simon
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 2:55 PM, Jan-Kees van Andel
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You know what? Just to be on the safe side, I can remove the JavaDocs
and create some new patches without any. I delete the other patches
that might be dangerous.
That
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MYFACES-2101?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Simon Lessard updated MYFACES-2101:
---
Resolution: Fixed
Fix Version/s: 2.0.0-alpha
Status: Resolved (was:
Implement JSF 2.0 logic for UIComponent createComponent(final String
componentType)
---
Key: MYFACES-2105
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MYFACES-2105
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MYFACES-2100?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanelfocusedCommentId=12652712#action_12652712
]
Paul Pogonyshev commented on MYFACES-2100:
--
Thanks for the quick reply.
About
31 matches
Mail list logo