Re: Java5 and JSF 1.2 (was Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting]))
Yeah, I did already revert the stuff. Does anybody know why the merge stuff didn't work? Only the second option Wendy pointed out worked, even though I used exactly the line that Bernd proposed... just wondering. regards, Martin On 5/30/06, Sean Schofield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OK I will answer my own question. Yes that's what you did ... Author: mmarinschek Date: Fri May 26 06:00:36 2006 New Revision: 409666 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=409666view=rev Log: made a copy Added: myfaces/jsf12tc6/ - copied from r409665, myfaces/current/ This is why we only have the one svn external. They are very sneaky like this. No worries though since you created a core branch. (I also see you reverted the changes on the trunk. Thanks Wendy.) Sean On 5/29/06, Sean Schofield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Martin, When you created the original tc6 branch did you copy current? That would be the only way I could see the externals coming into play. The *only* external we should have is current. I will look into rolling back the changes on core since nobody has addressed this yet. Sean On 5/29/06, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Content Interweaving invokeOnComponent regards, Martin On 5/29/06, Bernd Bohmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Which features from jsf 1.2 you like to see in the trunk? Martin Marinschek schrieb: We can't add the changes in the API to tomahawk ;) regards, Martin On 5/29/06, Bernd Bohmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, I think the externals cause the trouble. Try a 'svn pg svn:externals' in the jsf12tc6 dir: core https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/core/trunk mavenhttps://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/maven/trunk site https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/site/trunk tomahawk https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/tomahawk/trunk shared https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/shared/trunk tobago https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/tobago/trunk the externals points to trunk. I suggest create a branch of core with: svn copy https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/mafaces/core/trunk https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/mafaces/core/branches/jsf12 Then rollback the changes on trunk like wendy suggested svn merge -r 410016:410016 https://svn.apache.com/repos/asf/myfaces/core/trunk delete the jsf12tc6 dir svn delete https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/jsf12tc6 Can someone verify the suggested steps? I don't think we should create two different branches for jsf12. Why we don't add all tomcat 5.5 and jdk 1.4 or jdk 1.3 compatible changes to tomahawk? Regards Bernd Wendy Smoak schrieb: On 5/29/06, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: any ideas? Since Stan's were the last changes on the trunk, you can delete myfaces/jsf12tc6 and then copy from myfaces/core/trunk to myfaces/jsf12tc6. Then restore core/trunk from r410016 (prior to Stan's changes). Either merge the changes in reverse, or else delete core/trunk and copy it back from r410016, as shown in Resurrecting Deleted Items [1]. It depends on whether you want to keep the history on the JSF 1.2 changes in core/trunk. (I assume not.) [1] http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.0/ch04s04.html#svn-ch-4-sect-4.2 -- Dipl.-Ing. Bernd Bohmann - Atanion GmbH - Software Development Bismarckstr. 13, 26122 Oldenburg, http://www.atanion.com phone: +49 441 4082312, mobile: +49 173 8839471, fax: +49 441 4082333 -- Dipl.-Ing. Bernd Bohmann - Atanion GmbH - Software Development Bismarckstr. 13, 26122 Oldenburg, http://www.atanion.com phone: +49 441 4082312, mobile: +49 173 8839471, fax: +49 441 4082333 -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting]
Thank you for this work Stan. Dennis Byrne -Original Message- From: Stan Silvert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 12:12 AM To: 'MyFaces Development', [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting] Done. A few notes: - I think I counted 95 new or modified source files. You have plenty of new stuff to play with. - It compiles and runs - honest it does. However, I'm sure that it won't build with maven. I haven't touched the build scripts. I've been building with NetBeans. - You will need the Tomcat jars as I laid out in my wiki - Core no longer relies on commons-el. - All the new javax API's are implemented except some in the webapp package. - I haven't touched the taglibs The following can probably be removed. I think they are just dead code now: VariableResolverImpl.java PropertyResolverImpl.java MethodBindingImpl.java ValueBindingImpl.java ElParserHelper.java BundleUtils.java Enjoy. Stan Silvert JBoss, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] callto://stansilvert -Original Message- From: Stan Silvert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2006 6:12 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; MyFaces Development Subject: RE: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting] With no objections, I'll put it there as soon as I get a chance. Probably Sunday or Monday. Stan Silvert JBoss, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] callto://stansilvert -Original Message- From: Martin Marinschek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 9:02 AM To: MyFaces Development; Stan Silvert Subject: Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting] Ok, done - Stan, can you commit your changes there? regards, Martin On 5/26/06, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What I'll do anyway right now is create a branch of current. I'll still call it jsf12tc6 - if we settle this discussion with the result that this is going to be our only branch, it shouldn't be too much of a misnoming. regards, Martin On 5/24/06, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: until TC 6 is released. Besides, most of the work I do in core is in Junit rather than a container. if it is just the availability of jsp 2.1 jars, the jetty folks have their own (public) maven2 repo -Matthias -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting]
Thanks, Stan. You say that MethodBinding and ValueBinding are dead code now - how about the backwards compatibility with old components, where those classes are still used? regards, Martin On 5/29/06, Dennis Byrne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thank you for this work Stan. Dennis Byrne -Original Message- From: Stan Silvert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 12:12 AM To: 'MyFaces Development', [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting] Done. A few notes: - I think I counted 95 new or modified source files. You have plenty of new stuff to play with. - It compiles and runs - honest it does. However, I'm sure that it won't build with maven. I haven't touched the build scripts. I've been building with NetBeans. - You will need the Tomcat jars as I laid out in my wiki - Core no longer relies on commons-el. - All the new javax API's are implemented except some in the webapp package. - I haven't touched the taglibs The following can probably be removed. I think they are just dead code now: VariableResolverImpl.java PropertyResolverImpl.java MethodBindingImpl.java ValueBindingImpl.java ElParserHelper.java BundleUtils.java Enjoy. Stan Silvert JBoss, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] callto://stansilvert -Original Message- From: Stan Silvert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2006 6:12 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; MyFaces Development Subject: RE: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting] With no objections, I'll put it there as soon as I get a chance. Probably Sunday or Monday. Stan Silvert JBoss, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] callto://stansilvert -Original Message- From: Martin Marinschek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 9:02 AM To: MyFaces Development; Stan Silvert Subject: Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting] Ok, done - Stan, can you commit your changes there? regards, Martin On 5/26/06, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What I'll do anyway right now is create a branch of current. I'll still call it jsf12tc6 - if we settle this discussion with the result that this is going to be our only branch, it shouldn't be too much of a misnoming. regards, Martin On 5/24/06, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: until TC 6 is released. Besides, most of the work I do in core is in Junit rather than a container. if it is just the availability of jsp 2.1 jars, the jetty folks have their own (public) maven2 repo -Matthias -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
Java5 and JSF 1.2 (was Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting]))
Thanks Stan, but you committed the JSF 1.2 stuff (depends on Java5) against the *head* Wasn't there a *plan* to commit that stuff into a brunch first ? Regards, Matthias On 5/29/06, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks, Stan. You say that MethodBinding and ValueBinding are dead code now - how about the backwards compatibility with old components, where those classes are still used? regards, Martin On 5/29/06, Dennis Byrne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thank you for this work Stan. Dennis Byrne -Original Message- From: Stan Silvert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 12:12 AM To: 'MyFaces Development', [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting] Done. A few notes: - I think I counted 95 new or modified source files. You have plenty of new stuff to play with. - It compiles and runs - honest it does. However, I'm sure that it won't build with maven. I haven't touched the build scripts. I've been building with NetBeans. - You will need the Tomcat jars as I laid out in my wiki - Core no longer relies on commons-el. - All the new javax API's are implemented except some in the webapp package. - I haven't touched the taglibs The following can probably be removed. I think they are just dead code now: VariableResolverImpl.java PropertyResolverImpl.java MethodBindingImpl.java ValueBindingImpl.java ElParserHelper.java BundleUtils.java Enjoy. Stan Silvert JBoss, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] callto://stansilvert -Original Message- From: Stan Silvert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2006 6:12 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; MyFaces Development Subject: RE: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting] With no objections, I'll put it there as soon as I get a chance. Probably Sunday or Monday. Stan Silvert JBoss, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] callto://stansilvert -Original Message- From: Martin Marinschek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 9:02 AM To: MyFaces Development; Stan Silvert Subject: Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting] Ok, done - Stan, can you commit your changes there? regards, Martin On 5/26/06, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What I'll do anyway right now is create a branch of current. I'll still call it jsf12tc6 - if we settle this discussion with the result that this is going to be our only branch, it shouldn't be too much of a misnoming. regards, Martin On 5/24/06, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: until TC 6 is released. Besides, most of the work I do in core is in Junit rather than a container. if it is just the availability of jsp 2.1 jars, the jetty folks have their own (public) maven2 repo -Matthias -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces -- Matthias Wessendorf Aechterhoek 18 48282 Emsdetten http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
RE: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting]
MethodBinding and ValueBinding are still there for backward compatibility. It is the MethodBindingImpl and ValueBindingImpl that are no longer needed. Take a look at what now happens when you call ApplicationImpl.createValueBinding() and ApplicationImpl.createMethodBinding(). Stan Silvert JBoss, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] callto://stansilvert -Original Message- From: Martin Marinschek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 3:55 AM To: MyFaces Development Subject: Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting] Thanks, Stan. You say that MethodBinding and ValueBinding are dead code now - how about the backwards compatibility with old components, where those classes are still used? regards, Martin On 5/29/06, Dennis Byrne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thank you for this work Stan. Dennis Byrne -Original Message- From: Stan Silvert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 12:12 AM To: 'MyFaces Development', [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting] Done. A few notes: - I think I counted 95 new or modified source files. You have plenty of new stuff to play with. - It compiles and runs - honest it does. However, I'm sure that it won't build with maven. I haven't touched the build scripts. I've been building with NetBeans. - You will need the Tomcat jars as I laid out in my wiki - Core no longer relies on commons-el. - All the new javax API's are implemented except some in the webapp package. - I haven't touched the taglibs The following can probably be removed. I think they are just dead code now: VariableResolverImpl.java PropertyResolverImpl.java MethodBindingImpl.java ValueBindingImpl.java ElParserHelper.java BundleUtils.java Enjoy. Stan Silvert JBoss, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] callto://stansilvert -Original Message- From: Stan Silvert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2006 6:12 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; MyFaces Development Subject: RE: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting] With no objections, I'll put it there as soon as I get a chance. Probably Sunday or Monday. Stan Silvert JBoss, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] callto://stansilvert -Original Message- From: Martin Marinschek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 9:02 AM To: MyFaces Development; Stan Silvert Subject: Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting] Ok, done - Stan, can you commit your changes there? regards, Martin On 5/26/06, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What I'll do anyway right now is create a branch of current. I'll still call it jsf12tc6 - if we settle this discussion with the result that this is going to be our only branch, it shouldn't be too much of a misnoming. regards, Martin On 5/24/06, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: until TC 6 is released. Besides, most of the work I do in core is in Junit rather than a container. if it is just the availability of jsp 2.1 jars, the jetty folks have their own (public) maven2 repo -Matthias -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
RE: Java5 and JSF 1.2 (was Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting]))
Sorry if I screwed this up. Maybe my lack of SVN knowledge is catching up with me? Here is what I did: svn co https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/jsf12tc6 make changes svn commit Did I do something wrong or was the jsf12tc6 branch set up incorrectly? Please let me know if I need to do something to fix this. Stan Silvert JBoss, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] callto://stansilvert -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matthias Wessendorf Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 6:06 AM To: MyFaces Development; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Java5 and JSF 1.2 (was Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting])) Thanks Stan, but you committed the JSF 1.2 stuff (depends on Java5) against the *head* Wasn't there a *plan* to commit that stuff into a brunch first ? Regards, Matthias On 5/29/06, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks, Stan. You say that MethodBinding and ValueBinding are dead code now - how about the backwards compatibility with old components, where those classes are still used? regards, Martin On 5/29/06, Dennis Byrne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thank you for this work Stan. Dennis Byrne -Original Message- From: Stan Silvert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 12:12 AM To: 'MyFaces Development', [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting] Done. A few notes: - I think I counted 95 new or modified source files. You have plenty of new stuff to play with. - It compiles and runs - honest it does. However, I'm sure that it won't build with maven. I haven't touched the build scripts. I've been building with NetBeans. - You will need the Tomcat jars as I laid out in my wiki - Core no longer relies on commons-el. - All the new javax API's are implemented except some in the webapp package. - I haven't touched the taglibs The following can probably be removed. I think they are just dead code now: VariableResolverImpl.java PropertyResolverImpl.java MethodBindingImpl.java ValueBindingImpl.java ElParserHelper.java BundleUtils.java Enjoy. Stan Silvert JBoss, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] callto://stansilvert -Original Message- From: Stan Silvert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2006 6:12 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; MyFaces Development Subject: RE: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting] With no objections, I'll put it there as soon as I get a chance. Probably Sunday or Monday. Stan Silvert JBoss, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] callto://stansilvert -Original Message- From: Martin Marinschek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 9:02 AM To: MyFaces Development; Stan Silvert Subject: Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting] Ok, done - Stan, can you commit your changes there? regards, Martin On 5/26/06, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What I'll do anyway right now is create a branch of current. I'll still call it jsf12tc6 - if we settle this discussion with the result that this is going to be our only branch, it shouldn't be too much of a misnoming. regards, Martin On 5/24/06, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: until TC 6 is released. Besides, most of the work I do in core is in Junit rather than a container. if it is just the availability of jsp 2.1 jars, the jetty folks have their own (public) maven2 repo -Matthias -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces -- Matthias Wessendorf Aechterhoek 18 48282 Emsdetten http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
RE: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting]
I thought I was committing to a branch. See my other email about this. Stan Silvert JBoss, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] callto://stansilvert -Original Message- From: Martin Marinschek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 9:06 AM To: Stan Silvert Cc: MyFaces Development Subject: Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting] ah, ok... all clear What about the branches? You did commit to the trunk now, right? regards, Martin On 5/29/06, Stan Silvert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: MethodBinding and ValueBinding are still there for backward compatibility. It is the MethodBindingImpl and ValueBindingImpl that are no longer needed. Take a look at what now happens when you call ApplicationImpl.createValueBinding() and ApplicationImpl.createMethodBinding(). Stan Silvert JBoss, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] callto://stansilvert -Original Message- From: Martin Marinschek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 3:55 AM To: MyFaces Development Subject: Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting] Thanks, Stan. You say that MethodBinding and ValueBinding are dead code now - how about the backwards compatibility with old components, where those classes are still used? regards, Martin On 5/29/06, Dennis Byrne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thank you for this work Stan. Dennis Byrne -Original Message- From: Stan Silvert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 12:12 AM To: 'MyFaces Development', [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting] Done. A few notes: - I think I counted 95 new or modified source files. You have plenty of new stuff to play with. - It compiles and runs - honest it does. However, I'm sure that it won't build with maven. I haven't touched the build scripts. I've been building with NetBeans. - You will need the Tomcat jars as I laid out in my wiki - Core no longer relies on commons-el. - All the new javax API's are implemented except some in the webapp package. - I haven't touched the taglibs The following can probably be removed. I think they are just dead code now: VariableResolverImpl.java PropertyResolverImpl.java MethodBindingImpl.java ValueBindingImpl.java ElParserHelper.java BundleUtils.java Enjoy. Stan Silvert JBoss, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] callto://stansilvert -Original Message- From: Stan Silvert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2006 6:12 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; MyFaces Development Subject: RE: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting] With no objections, I'll put it there as soon as I get a chance. Probably Sunday or Monday. Stan Silvert JBoss, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] callto://stansilvert -Original Message- From: Martin Marinschek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 9:02 AM To: MyFaces Development; Stan Silvert Subject: Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting] Ok, done - Stan, can you commit your changes there? regards, Martin On 5/26/06, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What I'll do anyway right now is create a branch of current. I'll still call it jsf12tc6 - if we settle this discussion with the result that this is going to be our only branch, it shouldn't be too much of a misnoming. regards, Martin On 5/24/06, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: until TC 6 is released. Besides, most of the work I do in core is in Junit rather than a container. if it is just the availability of jsp 2.1 jars, the jetty folks have their own (public) maven2 repo -Matthias -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting
RE: Java5 and JSF 1.2 (was Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting]))
I'm not sure what this means, but take a look at the URLs for jsf12tc6 and the core subdirectory: C:\projects\MyFaces1.2\jsf12tc6svn info Path: . URL: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/jsf12tc6 Repository UUID: 13f79535-47bb-0310-9956-ffa450edef68 Revision: 410009 Node Kind: directory Schedule: normal Last Changed Author: mmarinschek Last Changed Rev: 409666 Last Changed Date: 2006-05-26 09:00:36 -0400 (Fri, 26 May 2006) Properties Last Updated: 2006-05-28 20:45:08 -0400 (Sun, 28 May 2006) C:\projects\MyFaces1.2\jsf12tc6cd core C:\projects\MyFaces1.2\jsf12tc6\coresvn info Path: . URL: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/core/trunk Repository UUID: 13f79535-47bb-0310-9956-ffa450edef68 Revision: 410009 Node Kind: directory Schedule: normal Last Changed Author: imario Last Changed Rev: 406874 Last Changed Date: 2006-05-16 04:30:48 -0400 (Tue, 16 May 2006) Properties Last Updated: 2006-05-28 20:45:48 -0400 (Sun, 28 May 2006) I did my commit from jsf12tc6\core. Why would this subdirectory point to trunk? Stan Silvert JBoss, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] callto://stansilvert -Original Message- From: Stan Silvert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 9:10 AM To: MyFaces Development; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Java5 and JSF 1.2 (was Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting])) Sorry if I screwed this up. Maybe my lack of SVN knowledge is catching up with me? Here is what I did: svn co https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/jsf12tc6 make changes svn commit Did I do something wrong or was the jsf12tc6 branch set up incorrectly? Please let me know if I need to do something to fix this. Stan Silvert JBoss, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] callto://stansilvert -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matthias Wessendorf Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 6:06 AM To: MyFaces Development; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Java5 and JSF 1.2 (was Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting])) Thanks Stan, but you committed the JSF 1.2 stuff (depends on Java5) against the *head* Wasn't there a *plan* to commit that stuff into a brunch first ? Regards, Matthias On 5/29/06, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks, Stan. You say that MethodBinding and ValueBinding are dead code now - how about the backwards compatibility with old components, where those classes are still used? regards, Martin On 5/29/06, Dennis Byrne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thank you for this work Stan. Dennis Byrne -Original Message- From: Stan Silvert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 12:12 AM To: 'MyFaces Development', [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting] Done. A few notes: - I think I counted 95 new or modified source files. You have plenty of new stuff to play with. - It compiles and runs - honest it does. However, I'm sure that it won't build with maven. I haven't touched the build scripts. I've been building with NetBeans. - You will need the Tomcat jars as I laid out in my wiki - Core no longer relies on commons-el. - All the new javax API's are implemented except some in the webapp package. - I haven't touched the taglibs The following can probably be removed. I think they are just dead code now: VariableResolverImpl.java PropertyResolverImpl.java MethodBindingImpl.java ValueBindingImpl.java ElParserHelper.java BundleUtils.java Enjoy. Stan Silvert JBoss, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] callto://stansilvert -Original Message- From: Stan Silvert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2006 6:12 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; MyFaces Development Subject: RE: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting] With no objections, I'll put it there as soon as I get a chance. Probably Sunday or Monday. Stan Silvert JBoss, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] callto://stansilvert -Original Message- From: Martin Marinschek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 9:02 AM To: MyFaces Development; Stan Silvert Subject: Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting] Ok, done - Stan, can you commit your changes there? regards, Martin On 5/26/06, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What I'll do anyway right now is create a branch of current. I'll still call it jsf12tc6 - if we settle this discussion with the result that this is going to be our only branch, it shouldn't be too much
Re: Java5 and JSF 1.2 (was Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting]))
Ok, what I did was: Copy (Branch/Tag) from Head - to URL ...myfaces/jsf12tc6. Should be ok in my opinion. Hmm. regards, Martin On 5/29/06, Stan Silvert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry if I screwed this up. Maybe my lack of SVN knowledge is catching up with me? Here is what I did: svn co https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/jsf12tc6 make changes svn commit Did I do something wrong or was the jsf12tc6 branch set up incorrectly? Please let me know if I need to do something to fix this. Stan Silvert JBoss, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] callto://stansilvert -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matthias Wessendorf Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 6:06 AM To: MyFaces Development; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Java5 and JSF 1.2 (was Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting])) Thanks Stan, but you committed the JSF 1.2 stuff (depends on Java5) against the *head* Wasn't there a *plan* to commit that stuff into a brunch first ? Regards, Matthias On 5/29/06, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks, Stan. You say that MethodBinding and ValueBinding are dead code now - how about the backwards compatibility with old components, where those classes are still used? regards, Martin On 5/29/06, Dennis Byrne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thank you for this work Stan. Dennis Byrne -Original Message- From: Stan Silvert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 12:12 AM To: 'MyFaces Development', [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting] Done. A few notes: - I think I counted 95 new or modified source files. You have plenty of new stuff to play with. - It compiles and runs - honest it does. However, I'm sure that it won't build with maven. I haven't touched the build scripts. I've been building with NetBeans. - You will need the Tomcat jars as I laid out in my wiki - Core no longer relies on commons-el. - All the new javax API's are implemented except some in the webapp package. - I haven't touched the taglibs The following can probably be removed. I think they are just dead code now: VariableResolverImpl.java PropertyResolverImpl.java MethodBindingImpl.java ValueBindingImpl.java ElParserHelper.java BundleUtils.java Enjoy. Stan Silvert JBoss, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] callto://stansilvert -Original Message- From: Stan Silvert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2006 6:12 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; MyFaces Development Subject: RE: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting] With no objections, I'll put it there as soon as I get a chance. Probably Sunday or Monday. Stan Silvert JBoss, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] callto://stansilvert -Original Message- From: Martin Marinschek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 9:02 AM To: MyFaces Development; Stan Silvert Subject: Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting] Ok, done - Stan, can you commit your changes there? regards, Martin On 5/26/06, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What I'll do anyway right now is create a branch of current. I'll still call it jsf12tc6 - if we settle this discussion with the result that this is going to be our only branch, it shouldn't be too much of a misnoming. regards, Martin On 5/24/06, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: until TC 6 is released. Besides, most of the work I do in core is in Junit rather than a container. if it is just the availability of jsp 2.1 jars, the jetty folks have their own (public) maven2 repo -Matthias -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces -- Matthias Wessendorf Aechterhoek 18 48282 Emsdetten http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
Re: Java5 and JSF 1.2 (was Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting]))
Hi! C:\projects\MyFaces1.2\jsf12tc6\coresvn info Path: . URL: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/core/trunk I did my commit from jsf12tc6\core. Why would this subdirectory point to trunk? Maybe you copied the .svn directories too? Ciao, Mario
RE: Java5 and JSF 1.2 (was Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting]))
No, I just copied individual files. I'm sure of that. Stan Silvert JBoss, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] callto://stansilvert -Original Message- From: Mario Ivankovits [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 9:27 AM To: MyFaces Development Subject: Re: Java5 and JSF 1.2 (was Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting])) Hi! C:\projects\MyFaces1.2\jsf12tc6\coresvn info Path: . URL: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/core/trunk I did my commit from jsf12tc6\core. Why would this subdirectory point to trunk? Maybe you copied the .svn directories too? Ciao, Mario
Re: Java5 and JSF 1.2 (was Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting]))
How about svn-externals? Do we still have them in place? Maybe my branch only switched the main directory, but due to svn-externals, everything else remained in place? regards, Martin On 5/29/06, Stan Silvert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, I just copied individual files. I'm sure of that. Stan Silvert JBoss, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] callto://stansilvert -Original Message- From: Mario Ivankovits [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 9:27 AM To: MyFaces Development Subject: Re: Java5 and JSF 1.2 (was Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting])) Hi! C:\projects\MyFaces1.2\jsf12tc6\coresvn info Path: . URL: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/core/trunk I did my commit from jsf12tc6\core. Why would this subdirectory point to trunk? Maybe you copied the .svn directories too? Ciao, Mario -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
Re: Java5 and JSF 1.2 (was Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting]))
Bernd, any ideas? Thx, MAtthias On 5/29/06, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How about svn-externals? Do we still have them in place? Maybe my branch only switched the main directory, but due to svn-externals, everything else remained in place? regards, Martin On 5/29/06, Stan Silvert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, I just copied individual files. I'm sure of that. Stan Silvert JBoss, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] callto://stansilvert -Original Message- From: Mario Ivankovits [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 9:27 AM To: MyFaces Development Subject: Re: Java5 and JSF 1.2 (was Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting])) Hi! C:\projects\MyFaces1.2\jsf12tc6\coresvn info Path: . URL: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/core/trunk I did my commit from jsf12tc6\core. Why would this subdirectory point to trunk? Maybe you copied the .svn directories too? Ciao, Mario -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces -- Matthias Wessendorf Aechterhoek 18 48282 Emsdetten http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
Re: Java5 and JSF 1.2 (was Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting]))
On 5/29/06, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: any ideas? Since Stan's were the last changes on the trunk, you can delete myfaces/jsf12tc6 and then copy from myfaces/core/trunk to myfaces/jsf12tc6. Then restore core/trunk from r410016 (prior to Stan's changes). Either merge the changes in reverse, or else delete core/trunk and copy it back from r410016, as shown in Resurrecting Deleted Items [1]. It depends on whether you want to keep the history on the JSF 1.2 changes in core/trunk. (I assume not.) [1] http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.0/ch04s04.html#svn-ch-4-sect-4.2 -- Wendy
Re: Java5 and JSF 1.2 (was Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting]))
Hello, I think the externals cause the trouble. Try a 'svn pg svn:externals' in the jsf12tc6 dir: core https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/core/trunk mavenhttps://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/maven/trunk site https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/site/trunk tomahawk https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/tomahawk/trunk shared https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/shared/trunk tobago https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/tobago/trunk the externals points to trunk. I suggest create a branch of core with: svn copy https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/mafaces/core/trunk https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/mafaces/core/branches/jsf12 Then rollback the changes on trunk like wendy suggested svn merge -r 410016:410016 https://svn.apache.com/repos/asf/myfaces/core/trunk delete the jsf12tc6 dir svn delete https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/jsf12tc6 Can someone verify the suggested steps? I don't think we should create two different branches for jsf12. Why we don't add all tomcat 5.5 and jdk 1.4 or jdk 1.3 compatible changes to tomahawk? Regards Bernd Wendy Smoak schrieb: On 5/29/06, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: any ideas? Since Stan's were the last changes on the trunk, you can delete myfaces/jsf12tc6 and then copy from myfaces/core/trunk to myfaces/jsf12tc6. Then restore core/trunk from r410016 (prior to Stan's changes). Either merge the changes in reverse, or else delete core/trunk and copy it back from r410016, as shown in Resurrecting Deleted Items [1]. It depends on whether you want to keep the history on the JSF 1.2 changes in core/trunk. (I assume not.) [1] http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.0/ch04s04.html#svn-ch-4-sect-4.2 -- Dipl.-Ing. Bernd Bohmann - Atanion GmbH - Software Development Bismarckstr. 13, 26122 Oldenburg, http://www.atanion.com phone: +49 441 4082312, mobile: +49 173 8839471, fax: +49 441 4082333
Re: Java5 and JSF 1.2 (was Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting]))
looks good. I'll go forward with this right now. regards, Martin On 5/29/06, Bernd Bohmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, I think the externals cause the trouble. Try a 'svn pg svn:externals' in the jsf12tc6 dir: core https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/core/trunk mavenhttps://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/maven/trunk site https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/site/trunk tomahawk https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/tomahawk/trunk shared https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/shared/trunk tobago https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/tobago/trunk the externals points to trunk. I suggest create a branch of core with: svn copy https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/mafaces/core/trunk https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/mafaces/core/branches/jsf12 Then rollback the changes on trunk like wendy suggested svn merge -r 410016:410016 https://svn.apache.com/repos/asf/myfaces/core/trunk delete the jsf12tc6 dir svn delete https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/jsf12tc6 Can someone verify the suggested steps? I don't think we should create two different branches for jsf12. Why we don't add all tomcat 5.5 and jdk 1.4 or jdk 1.3 compatible changes to tomahawk? Regards Bernd Wendy Smoak schrieb: On 5/29/06, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: any ideas? Since Stan's were the last changes on the trunk, you can delete myfaces/jsf12tc6 and then copy from myfaces/core/trunk to myfaces/jsf12tc6. Then restore core/trunk from r410016 (prior to Stan's changes). Either merge the changes in reverse, or else delete core/trunk and copy it back from r410016, as shown in Resurrecting Deleted Items [1]. It depends on whether you want to keep the history on the JSF 1.2 changes in core/trunk. (I assume not.) [1] http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.0/ch04s04.html#svn-ch-4-sect-4.2 -- Dipl.-Ing. Bernd Bohmann - Atanion GmbH - Software Development Bismarckstr. 13, 26122 Oldenburg, http://www.atanion.com phone: +49 441 4082312, mobile: +49 173 8839471, fax: +49 441 4082333 -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
Re: Java5 and JSF 1.2 (was Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting]))
We can't add the changes in the API to tomahawk ;) regards, Martin On 5/29/06, Bernd Bohmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, I think the externals cause the trouble. Try a 'svn pg svn:externals' in the jsf12tc6 dir: core https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/core/trunk mavenhttps://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/maven/trunk site https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/site/trunk tomahawk https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/tomahawk/trunk shared https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/shared/trunk tobago https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/tobago/trunk the externals points to trunk. I suggest create a branch of core with: svn copy https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/mafaces/core/trunk https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/mafaces/core/branches/jsf12 Then rollback the changes on trunk like wendy suggested svn merge -r 410016:410016 https://svn.apache.com/repos/asf/myfaces/core/trunk delete the jsf12tc6 dir svn delete https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/jsf12tc6 Can someone verify the suggested steps? I don't think we should create two different branches for jsf12. Why we don't add all tomcat 5.5 and jdk 1.4 or jdk 1.3 compatible changes to tomahawk? Regards Bernd Wendy Smoak schrieb: On 5/29/06, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: any ideas? Since Stan's were the last changes on the trunk, you can delete myfaces/jsf12tc6 and then copy from myfaces/core/trunk to myfaces/jsf12tc6. Then restore core/trunk from r410016 (prior to Stan's changes). Either merge the changes in reverse, or else delete core/trunk and copy it back from r410016, as shown in Resurrecting Deleted Items [1]. It depends on whether you want to keep the history on the JSF 1.2 changes in core/trunk. (I assume not.) [1] http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.0/ch04s04.html#svn-ch-4-sect-4.2 -- Dipl.-Ing. Bernd Bohmann - Atanion GmbH - Software Development Bismarckstr. 13, 26122 Oldenburg, http://www.atanion.com phone: +49 441 4082312, mobile: +49 173 8839471, fax: +49 441 4082333 -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
Re: Java5 and JSF 1.2 (was Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting]))
Which features from jsf 1.2 you like to see in the trunk? Martin Marinschek schrieb: We can't add the changes in the API to tomahawk ;) regards, Martin On 5/29/06, Bernd Bohmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, I think the externals cause the trouble. Try a 'svn pg svn:externals' in the jsf12tc6 dir: core https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/core/trunk mavenhttps://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/maven/trunk site https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/site/trunk tomahawk https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/tomahawk/trunk shared https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/shared/trunk tobago https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/tobago/trunk the externals points to trunk. I suggest create a branch of core with: svn copy https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/mafaces/core/trunk https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/mafaces/core/branches/jsf12 Then rollback the changes on trunk like wendy suggested svn merge -r 410016:410016 https://svn.apache.com/repos/asf/myfaces/core/trunk delete the jsf12tc6 dir svn delete https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/jsf12tc6 Can someone verify the suggested steps? I don't think we should create two different branches for jsf12. Why we don't add all tomcat 5.5 and jdk 1.4 or jdk 1.3 compatible changes to tomahawk? Regards Bernd Wendy Smoak schrieb: On 5/29/06, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: any ideas? Since Stan's were the last changes on the trunk, you can delete myfaces/jsf12tc6 and then copy from myfaces/core/trunk to myfaces/jsf12tc6. Then restore core/trunk from r410016 (prior to Stan's changes). Either merge the changes in reverse, or else delete core/trunk and copy it back from r410016, as shown in Resurrecting Deleted Items [1]. It depends on whether you want to keep the history on the JSF 1.2 changes in core/trunk. (I assume not.) [1] http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.0/ch04s04.html#svn-ch-4-sect-4.2 -- Dipl.-Ing. Bernd Bohmann - Atanion GmbH - Software Development Bismarckstr. 13, 26122 Oldenburg, http://www.atanion.com phone: +49 441 4082312, mobile: +49 173 8839471, fax: +49 441 4082333 -- Dipl.-Ing. Bernd Bohmann - Atanion GmbH - Software Development Bismarckstr. 13, 26122 Oldenburg, http://www.atanion.com phone: +49 441 4082312, mobile: +49 173 8839471, fax: +49 441 4082333
Re: Java5 and JSF 1.2 (was Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting]))
Ok, I hope I cleared up my mess again - I went with Wendy's second suggestion, cause the reverse merging didn't have any effect on my system, and it's the better option anyways. Can anyone crosscheck if everything is ok now? regards, Martin P.S.: shouldn't we move off of externals now? Are they still necessary with maven? They shouldn't be, right? On 5/29/06, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We can't add the changes in the API to tomahawk ;) regards, Martin On 5/29/06, Bernd Bohmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, I think the externals cause the trouble. Try a 'svn pg svn:externals' in the jsf12tc6 dir: core https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/core/trunk mavenhttps://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/maven/trunk site https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/site/trunk tomahawk https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/tomahawk/trunk shared https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/shared/trunk tobago https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/tobago/trunk the externals points to trunk. I suggest create a branch of core with: svn copy https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/mafaces/core/trunk https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/mafaces/core/branches/jsf12 Then rollback the changes on trunk like wendy suggested svn merge -r 410016:410016 https://svn.apache.com/repos/asf/myfaces/core/trunk delete the jsf12tc6 dir svn delete https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/jsf12tc6 Can someone verify the suggested steps? I don't think we should create two different branches for jsf12. Why we don't add all tomcat 5.5 and jdk 1.4 or jdk 1.3 compatible changes to tomahawk? Regards Bernd Wendy Smoak schrieb: On 5/29/06, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: any ideas? Since Stan's were the last changes on the trunk, you can delete myfaces/jsf12tc6 and then copy from myfaces/core/trunk to myfaces/jsf12tc6. Then restore core/trunk from r410016 (prior to Stan's changes). Either merge the changes in reverse, or else delete core/trunk and copy it back from r410016, as shown in Resurrecting Deleted Items [1]. It depends on whether you want to keep the history on the JSF 1.2 changes in core/trunk. (I assume not.) [1] http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.0/ch04s04.html#svn-ch-4-sect-4.2 -- Dipl.-Ing. Bernd Bohmann - Atanion GmbH - Software Development Bismarckstr. 13, 26122 Oldenburg, http://www.atanion.com phone: +49 441 4082312, mobile: +49 173 8839471, fax: +49 441 4082333 -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
Re: Java5 and JSF 1.2 (was Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting]))
Content Interweaving invokeOnComponent regards, Martin On 5/29/06, Bernd Bohmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Which features from jsf 1.2 you like to see in the trunk? Martin Marinschek schrieb: We can't add the changes in the API to tomahawk ;) regards, Martin On 5/29/06, Bernd Bohmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, I think the externals cause the trouble. Try a 'svn pg svn:externals' in the jsf12tc6 dir: core https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/core/trunk mavenhttps://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/maven/trunk site https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/site/trunk tomahawk https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/tomahawk/trunk shared https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/shared/trunk tobago https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/tobago/trunk the externals points to trunk. I suggest create a branch of core with: svn copy https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/mafaces/core/trunk https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/mafaces/core/branches/jsf12 Then rollback the changes on trunk like wendy suggested svn merge -r 410016:410016 https://svn.apache.com/repos/asf/myfaces/core/trunk delete the jsf12tc6 dir svn delete https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/jsf12tc6 Can someone verify the suggested steps? I don't think we should create two different branches for jsf12. Why we don't add all tomcat 5.5 and jdk 1.4 or jdk 1.3 compatible changes to tomahawk? Regards Bernd Wendy Smoak schrieb: On 5/29/06, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: any ideas? Since Stan's were the last changes on the trunk, you can delete myfaces/jsf12tc6 and then copy from myfaces/core/trunk to myfaces/jsf12tc6. Then restore core/trunk from r410016 (prior to Stan's changes). Either merge the changes in reverse, or else delete core/trunk and copy it back from r410016, as shown in Resurrecting Deleted Items [1]. It depends on whether you want to keep the history on the JSF 1.2 changes in core/trunk. (I assume not.) [1] http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.0/ch04s04.html#svn-ch-4-sect-4.2 -- Dipl.-Ing. Bernd Bohmann - Atanion GmbH - Software Development Bismarckstr. 13, 26122 Oldenburg, http://www.atanion.com phone: +49 441 4082312, mobile: +49 173 8839471, fax: +49 441 4082333 -- Dipl.-Ing. Bernd Bohmann - Atanion GmbH - Software Development Bismarckstr. 13, 26122 Oldenburg, http://www.atanion.com phone: +49 441 4082312, mobile: +49 173 8839471, fax: +49 441 4082333 -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
Re: Java5 and JSF 1.2 (was Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting]))
Martin, When you created the original tc6 branch did you copy current? That would be the only way I could see the externals coming into play. The *only* external we should have is current. I will look into rolling back the changes on core since nobody has addressed this yet. Sean On 5/29/06, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Content Interweaving invokeOnComponent regards, Martin On 5/29/06, Bernd Bohmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Which features from jsf 1.2 you like to see in the trunk? Martin Marinschek schrieb: We can't add the changes in the API to tomahawk ;) regards, Martin On 5/29/06, Bernd Bohmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, I think the externals cause the trouble. Try a 'svn pg svn:externals' in the jsf12tc6 dir: core https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/core/trunk mavenhttps://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/maven/trunk site https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/site/trunk tomahawk https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/tomahawk/trunk shared https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/shared/trunk tobago https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/tobago/trunk the externals points to trunk. I suggest create a branch of core with: svn copy https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/mafaces/core/trunk https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/mafaces/core/branches/jsf12 Then rollback the changes on trunk like wendy suggested svn merge -r 410016:410016 https://svn.apache.com/repos/asf/myfaces/core/trunk delete the jsf12tc6 dir svn delete https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/jsf12tc6 Can someone verify the suggested steps? I don't think we should create two different branches for jsf12. Why we don't add all tomcat 5.5 and jdk 1.4 or jdk 1.3 compatible changes to tomahawk? Regards Bernd Wendy Smoak schrieb: On 5/29/06, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: any ideas? Since Stan's were the last changes on the trunk, you can delete myfaces/jsf12tc6 and then copy from myfaces/core/trunk to myfaces/jsf12tc6. Then restore core/trunk from r410016 (prior to Stan's changes). Either merge the changes in reverse, or else delete core/trunk and copy it back from r410016, as shown in Resurrecting Deleted Items [1]. It depends on whether you want to keep the history on the JSF 1.2 changes in core/trunk. (I assume not.) [1] http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.0/ch04s04.html#svn-ch-4-sect-4.2 -- Dipl.-Ing. Bernd Bohmann - Atanion GmbH - Software Development Bismarckstr. 13, 26122 Oldenburg, http://www.atanion.com phone: +49 441 4082312, mobile: +49 173 8839471, fax: +49 441 4082333 -- Dipl.-Ing. Bernd Bohmann - Atanion GmbH - Software Development Bismarckstr. 13, 26122 Oldenburg, http://www.atanion.com phone: +49 441 4082312, mobile: +49 173 8839471, fax: +49 441 4082333 -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
Re: Java5 and JSF 1.2 (was Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting]))
On 5/29/06, Sean Schofield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When you created the original tc6 branch did you copy current? That would be the only way I could see the externals coming into play. The *only* external we should have is current. I will look into rolling back the changes on core since nobody has addressed this yet. Martin fixed it already in http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=410137view=rev and http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=410138view=rev -- Wendy
Re: Java5 and JSF 1.2 (was Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting]))
OK I will answer my own question. Yes that's what you did ... Author: mmarinschek Date: Fri May 26 06:00:36 2006 New Revision: 409666 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=409666view=rev Log: made a copy Added: myfaces/jsf12tc6/ - copied from r409665, myfaces/current/ This is why we only have the one svn external. They are very sneaky like this. No worries though since you created a core branch. (I also see you reverted the changes on the trunk. Thanks Wendy.) Sean On 5/29/06, Sean Schofield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Martin, When you created the original tc6 branch did you copy current? That would be the only way I could see the externals coming into play. The *only* external we should have is current. I will look into rolling back the changes on core since nobody has addressed this yet. Sean On 5/29/06, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Content Interweaving invokeOnComponent regards, Martin On 5/29/06, Bernd Bohmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Which features from jsf 1.2 you like to see in the trunk? Martin Marinschek schrieb: We can't add the changes in the API to tomahawk ;) regards, Martin On 5/29/06, Bernd Bohmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, I think the externals cause the trouble. Try a 'svn pg svn:externals' in the jsf12tc6 dir: core https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/core/trunk mavenhttps://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/maven/trunk site https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/site/trunk tomahawk https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/tomahawk/trunk shared https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/shared/trunk tobago https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/tobago/trunk the externals points to trunk. I suggest create a branch of core with: svn copy https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/mafaces/core/trunk https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/mafaces/core/branches/jsf12 Then rollback the changes on trunk like wendy suggested svn merge -r 410016:410016 https://svn.apache.com/repos/asf/myfaces/core/trunk delete the jsf12tc6 dir svn delete https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/jsf12tc6 Can someone verify the suggested steps? I don't think we should create two different branches for jsf12. Why we don't add all tomcat 5.5 and jdk 1.4 or jdk 1.3 compatible changes to tomahawk? Regards Bernd Wendy Smoak schrieb: On 5/29/06, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: any ideas? Since Stan's were the last changes on the trunk, you can delete myfaces/jsf12tc6 and then copy from myfaces/core/trunk to myfaces/jsf12tc6. Then restore core/trunk from r410016 (prior to Stan's changes). Either merge the changes in reverse, or else delete core/trunk and copy it back from r410016, as shown in Resurrecting Deleted Items [1]. It depends on whether you want to keep the history on the JSF 1.2 changes in core/trunk. (I assume not.) [1] http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.0/ch04s04.html#svn-ch-4-sect-4.2 -- Dipl.-Ing. Bernd Bohmann - Atanion GmbH - Software Development Bismarckstr. 13, 26122 Oldenburg, http://www.atanion.com phone: +49 441 4082312, mobile: +49 173 8839471, fax: +49 441 4082333 -- Dipl.-Ing. Bernd Bohmann - Atanion GmbH - Software Development Bismarckstr. 13, 26122 Oldenburg, http://www.atanion.com phone: +49 441 4082312, mobile: +49 173 8839471, fax: +49 441 4082333 -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
RE: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting]
Done. A few notes: - I think I counted 95 new or modified source files. You have plenty of new stuff to play with. - It compiles and runs - honest it does. However, I'm sure that it won't build with maven. I haven't touched the build scripts. I've been building with NetBeans. - You will need the Tomcat jars as I laid out in my wiki - Core no longer relies on commons-el. - All the new javax API's are implemented except some in the webapp package. - I haven't touched the taglibs The following can probably be removed. I think they are just dead code now: VariableResolverImpl.java PropertyResolverImpl.java MethodBindingImpl.java ValueBindingImpl.java ElParserHelper.java BundleUtils.java Enjoy. Stan Silvert JBoss, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] callto://stansilvert -Original Message- From: Stan Silvert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2006 6:12 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; MyFaces Development Subject: RE: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting] With no objections, I'll put it there as soon as I get a chance. Probably Sunday or Monday. Stan Silvert JBoss, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] callto://stansilvert -Original Message- From: Martin Marinschek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 9:02 AM To: MyFaces Development; Stan Silvert Subject: Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting] Ok, done - Stan, can you commit your changes there? regards, Martin On 5/26/06, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What I'll do anyway right now is create a branch of current. I'll still call it jsf12tc6 - if we settle this discussion with the result that this is going to be our only branch, it shouldn't be too much of a misnoming. regards, Martin On 5/24/06, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: until TC 6 is released. Besides, most of the work I do in core is in Junit rather than a container. if it is just the availability of jsp 2.1 jars, the jetty folks have their own (public) maven2 repo -Matthias -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
RE: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting]
With no objections, I'll put it there as soon as I get a chance. Probably Sunday or Monday. Stan Silvert JBoss, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] callto://stansilvert -Original Message- From: Martin Marinschek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 9:02 AM To: MyFaces Development; Stan Silvert Subject: Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting] Ok, done - Stan, can you commit your changes there? regards, Martin On 5/26/06, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What I'll do anyway right now is create a branch of current. I'll still call it jsf12tc6 - if we settle this discussion with the result that this is going to be our only branch, it shouldn't be too much of a misnoming. regards, Martin On 5/24/06, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: until TC 6 is released. Besides, most of the work I do in core is in Junit rather than a container. if it is just the availability of jsp 2.1 jars, the jetty folks have their own (public) maven2 repo -Matthias -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting]
Hi Dennis, it should be easy to change this over - let's just get Stan's stuff in for now, and keep on discussing next week. I had bad dreams of ruined hard drives the last days ;) regards, Martin On 5/26/06, Dennis Byrne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I thought everyone was in agreement that trunk would be for 1.2 . Did I miss something? Dennis Byrne -Original Message- From: Martin Marinschek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 09:00 AM To: 'MyFaces Development' Subject: Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting] What I'll do anyway right now is create a branch of current. I'll still call it jsf12tc6 - if we settle this discussion with the result that this is going to be our only branch, it shouldn't be too much of a misnoming. regards, Martin On 5/24/06, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: until TC 6 is released. Besides, most of the work I do in core is in Junit rather than a container. if it is just the availability of jsp 2.1 jars, the jetty folks have their own (public) maven2 repo -Matthias -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting]
What I'll do anyway right now is create a branch of current. I'll still call it jsf12tc6 - if we settle this discussion with the result that this is going to be our only branch, it shouldn't be too much of a misnoming. regards, Martin On 5/24/06, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: until TC 6 is released. Besides, most of the work I do in core is in Junit rather than a container. if it is just the availability of jsp 2.1 jars, the jetty folks have their own (public) maven2 repo -Matthias -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting]
I thought everyone was in agreement that trunk would be for 1.2 . Did I miss something? Dennis Byrne -Original Message- From: Martin Marinschek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 09:00 AM To: 'MyFaces Development' Subject: Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting] What I'll do anyway right now is create a branch of current. I'll still call it jsf12tc6 - if we settle this discussion with the result that this is going to be our only branch, it shouldn't be too much of a misnoming. regards, Martin On 5/24/06, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: until TC 6 is released. Besides, most of the work I do in core is in Junit rather than a container. if it is just the availability of jsp 2.1 jars, the jetty folks have their own (public) maven2 repo -Matthias -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting]
There is no 1.1 compliant way of fixing dummyform - there just isn't. I would have gone with a single branch for 1.2 and checking in TC5.5 compatible stuff only, but Stan has already worked on 1.2, and he has implemented also TC6 depending things, so no chance to go with this, except we want to loose what Stan did, and I wouldn't. I want to do development on the 1.1 branch for bugfixes only anymore. 1.2 is our future, and we should go there! regards, Martin On 5/23/06, Sean Schofield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are we talking about the fix for DummyForm? Are we not going to attempt to have a 1.1 compatible fix? What about a single branch for 1.2 and only check in the Tomcat 5.5 compatible stuff? I agree with Craig that you don't want to be actively developing on the trunk plus two branches. Trust me, its difficult enough managing this when we have a short-lived branch for a release. -1 for a long-term double branch strategy. Sean On 5/23/06, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's just that we need the 1.2 features for several things we want to fix right now - and TC6 is still not released, so we can't work with the full feature set of 1.2. regards, Martin On 5/22/06, Sean Schofield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why is there a need to have a separate branch for TC6 vs. TC55. Sorry if I missed the discussion on the need for this ... Sean On 5/22/06, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Craig, critical fixes to 1.1. - 1.1 branch major development -- trunk special things for 1.2 under TC6 only -- 1.2 branch With this, it should be albe to merge down the 1.2 branch to the trunk, right? regards, Martin On 5/22/06, Craig McClanahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 5/21/06, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok, one more addition to the discussion - I'll want to branches. One for JSF1.2 things which cannot be used together with Tomcat 5.5 and, one for JSF1.2 things which can be used with Tomcat 5.5. I'd love trunk to be the JSF1.2/Tomcat 5.5 branch, and have bug fixes for 1.1 on a real branch. summary: 1.1 -- branch 1.2 Tomcat 6 -- branch 1.2 Tomcat 5.5. -- trunk is that ok? Wouldn't this mean that every change that worked under 5.5 would need to be committed to both branches? That seems like a good way to slow down the effort to achieve 1.2 compliance. regards, Martin Craig On 5/19/06, Stan Silvert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That would be fine. After I am done we may need some help from Sean. He was talking about putting Tomcat 6 jars in an Apache Maven repository. I've been building with NetBeans and not Maven. So someone who is more Maven savvy will need to update things so it builds correctly. I don't think it will be more complicated than adding and removing some dependencies. Stan Silvert JBoss, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] callto://stansilvert -Original Message- From: Manfred Geiler [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 8:48 PM To: MyFaces Development Subject: Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting] Sean, Can you please make a copy of the current trunk to /myfaces/core/branches/jsf_1_2 ? After that, Stan can simply (?) merge his stuff inside that. Is that ok, Stan? Manfred On 5/18/06, Sean Schofield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You want a 1.2 branch for core only using the latest trunk right? I can create it for you if you want ... Sean On 5/18/06, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Manfred, can you go ahead with that 1.2 branch? regards, Martin On 5/18/06, Thomas Spiegl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm having a look at tomahawk 416 +1 for creating a 1.2 branch On 5/18/06, Stan Silvert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have implemented most of the new core API's and fixed most of the deprecated ones to be backwards compatible with 1.1 (if you look at the 1.2 javadocs you'll see what I mean). If you look at the section in the spec preface entitled What's Changed Since the Last Release you can get a feel for what I did. I've pretty much done everything in that list. Most of it is covered under this issue, which just says to implement several sections of the spec: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MYFACES-1274 I believe all of 1274
Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting]
So does this mean that our Tomahawk releases are no longer compatible with the RI? That's our current problem right? Sean On 5/24/06, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is no 1.1 compliant way of fixing dummyform - there just isn't. I would have gone with a single branch for 1.2 and checking in TC5.5 compatible stuff only, but Stan has already worked on 1.2, and he has implemented also TC6 depending things, so no chance to go with this, except we want to loose what Stan did, and I wouldn't. I want to do development on the 1.1 branch for bugfixes only anymore. 1.2 is our future, and we should go there! regards, Martin On 5/23/06, Sean Schofield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are we talking about the fix for DummyForm? Are we not going to attempt to have a 1.1 compatible fix? What about a single branch for 1.2 and only check in the Tomcat 5.5 compatible stuff? I agree with Craig that you don't want to be actively developing on the trunk plus two branches. Trust me, its difficult enough managing this when we have a short-lived branch for a release. -1 for a long-term double branch strategy. Sean On 5/23/06, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's just that we need the 1.2 features for several things we want to fix right now - and TC6 is still not released, so we can't work with the full feature set of 1.2. regards, Martin On 5/22/06, Sean Schofield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why is there a need to have a separate branch for TC6 vs. TC55. Sorry if I missed the discussion on the need for this ... Sean On 5/22/06, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Craig, critical fixes to 1.1. - 1.1 branch major development -- trunk special things for 1.2 under TC6 only -- 1.2 branch With this, it should be albe to merge down the 1.2 branch to the trunk, right? regards, Martin On 5/22/06, Craig McClanahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 5/21/06, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok, one more addition to the discussion - I'll want to branches. One for JSF1.2 things which cannot be used together with Tomcat 5.5 and, one for JSF1.2 things which can be used with Tomcat 5.5. I'd love trunk to be the JSF1.2/Tomcat 5.5 branch, and have bug fixes for 1.1 on a real branch. summary: 1.1 -- branch 1.2 Tomcat 6 -- branch 1.2 Tomcat 5.5. -- trunk is that ok? Wouldn't this mean that every change that worked under 5.5 would need to be committed to both branches? That seems like a good way to slow down the effort to achieve 1.2 compliance. regards, Martin Craig On 5/19/06, Stan Silvert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That would be fine. After I am done we may need some help from Sean. He was talking about putting Tomcat 6 jars in an Apache Maven repository. I've been building with NetBeans and not Maven. So someone who is more Maven savvy will need to update things so it builds correctly. I don't think it will be more complicated than adding and removing some dependencies. Stan Silvert JBoss, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] callto://stansilvert -Original Message- From: Manfred Geiler [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 8:48 PM To: MyFaces Development Subject: Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting] Sean, Can you please make a copy of the current trunk to /myfaces/core/branches/jsf_1_2 ? After that, Stan can simply (?) merge his stuff inside that. Is that ok, Stan? Manfred On 5/18/06, Sean Schofield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You want a 1.2 branch for core only using the latest trunk right? I can create it for you if you want ... Sean On 5/18/06, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Manfred, can you go ahead with that 1.2 branch? regards, Martin On 5/18/06, Thomas Spiegl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm having a look at tomahawk 416 +1 for creating a 1.2 branch On 5/18/06, Stan Silvert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have implemented most of the new core API's and fixed most of the deprecated ones to be backwards compatible with 1.1 (if you look at the 1.2 javadocs you'll see what I mean). If you look at the section in the spec preface entitled What's Changed Since the Last Release you can get a feel for what I did
Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting]
No. The current build should be compatible again - if I don't have old information here... regards, Martin On 5/24/06, Sean Schofield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So does this mean that our Tomahawk releases are no longer compatible with the RI? That's our current problem right? Sean On 5/24/06, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is no 1.1 compliant way of fixing dummyform - there just isn't. I would have gone with a single branch for 1.2 and checking in TC5.5 compatible stuff only, but Stan has already worked on 1.2, and he has implemented also TC6 depending things, so no chance to go with this, except we want to loose what Stan did, and I wouldn't. I want to do development on the 1.1 branch for bugfixes only anymore. 1.2 is our future, and we should go there! regards, Martin On 5/23/06, Sean Schofield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are we talking about the fix for DummyForm? Are we not going to attempt to have a 1.1 compatible fix? What about a single branch for 1.2 and only check in the Tomcat 5.5 compatible stuff? I agree with Craig that you don't want to be actively developing on the trunk plus two branches. Trust me, its difficult enough managing this when we have a short-lived branch for a release. -1 for a long-term double branch strategy. Sean On 5/23/06, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's just that we need the 1.2 features for several things we want to fix right now - and TC6 is still not released, so we can't work with the full feature set of 1.2. regards, Martin On 5/22/06, Sean Schofield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why is there a need to have a separate branch for TC6 vs. TC55. Sorry if I missed the discussion on the need for this ... Sean On 5/22/06, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Craig, critical fixes to 1.1. - 1.1 branch major development -- trunk special things for 1.2 under TC6 only -- 1.2 branch With this, it should be albe to merge down the 1.2 branch to the trunk, right? regards, Martin On 5/22/06, Craig McClanahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 5/21/06, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok, one more addition to the discussion - I'll want to branches. One for JSF1.2 things which cannot be used together with Tomcat 5.5 and, one for JSF1.2 things which can be used with Tomcat 5.5. I'd love trunk to be the JSF1.2/Tomcat 5.5 branch, and have bug fixes for 1.1 on a real branch. summary: 1.1 -- branch 1.2 Tomcat 6 -- branch 1.2 Tomcat 5.5. -- trunk is that ok? Wouldn't this mean that every change that worked under 5.5 would need to be committed to both branches? That seems like a good way to slow down the effort to achieve 1.2 compliance. regards, Martin Craig On 5/19/06, Stan Silvert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That would be fine. After I am done we may need some help from Sean. He was talking about putting Tomcat 6 jars in an Apache Maven repository. I've been building with NetBeans and not Maven. So someone who is more Maven savvy will need to update things so it builds correctly. I don't think it will be more complicated than adding and removing some dependencies. Stan Silvert JBoss, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] callto://stansilvert -Original Message- From: Manfred Geiler [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 8:48 PM To: MyFaces Development Subject: Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting] Sean, Can you please make a copy of the current trunk to /myfaces/core/branches/jsf_1_2 ? After that, Stan can simply (?) merge his stuff inside that. Is that ok, Stan? Manfred On 5/18/06, Sean Schofield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You want a 1.2 branch for core only using the latest trunk right? I can create it for you if you want ... Sean On 5/18/06, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Manfred, can you go ahead with that 1.2 branch? regards, Martin On 5/18/06, Thomas Spiegl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm having a look at tomahawk 416 +1 for creating a 1.2 branch On 5/18/06, Stan Silvert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have implemented most of the new core API's and fixed most of the deprecated ones
Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting]
OK so Stan is past the TC 5.5 point. Why do we need two branches? Can't we just say that 1.2 depends on TC 6.0 or Glassfish? I still think we need to do everything we can to avoid multiple branches. Sean On 5/24/06, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No. The current build should be compatible again - if I don't have old information here... regards, Martin On 5/24/06, Sean Schofield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So does this mean that our Tomahawk releases are no longer compatible with the RI? That's our current problem right? Sean On 5/24/06, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is no 1.1 compliant way of fixing dummyform - there just isn't. I would have gone with a single branch for 1.2 and checking in TC5.5 compatible stuff only, but Stan has already worked on 1.2, and he has implemented also TC6 depending things, so no chance to go with this, except we want to loose what Stan did, and I wouldn't. I want to do development on the 1.1 branch for bugfixes only anymore. 1.2 is our future, and we should go there! regards, Martin On 5/23/06, Sean Schofield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are we talking about the fix for DummyForm? Are we not going to attempt to have a 1.1 compatible fix? What about a single branch for 1.2 and only check in the Tomcat 5.5 compatible stuff? I agree with Craig that you don't want to be actively developing on the trunk plus two branches. Trust me, its difficult enough managing this when we have a short-lived branch for a release. -1 for a long-term double branch strategy. Sean On 5/23/06, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's just that we need the 1.2 features for several things we want to fix right now - and TC6 is still not released, so we can't work with the full feature set of 1.2. regards, Martin On 5/22/06, Sean Schofield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why is there a need to have a separate branch for TC6 vs. TC55. Sorry if I missed the discussion on the need for this ... Sean On 5/22/06, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Craig, critical fixes to 1.1. - 1.1 branch major development -- trunk special things for 1.2 under TC6 only -- 1.2 branch With this, it should be albe to merge down the 1.2 branch to the trunk, right? regards, Martin On 5/22/06, Craig McClanahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 5/21/06, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok, one more addition to the discussion - I'll want to branches. One for JSF1.2 things which cannot be used together with Tomcat 5.5 and, one for JSF1.2 things which can be used with Tomcat 5.5. I'd love trunk to be the JSF1.2/Tomcat 5.5 branch, and have bug fixes for 1.1 on a real branch. summary: 1.1 -- branch 1.2 Tomcat 6 -- branch 1.2 Tomcat 5.5. -- trunk is that ok? Wouldn't this mean that every change that worked under 5.5 would need to be committed to both branches? That seems like a good way to slow down the effort to achieve 1.2 compliance. regards, Martin Craig On 5/19/06, Stan Silvert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That would be fine. After I am done we may need some help from Sean. He was talking about putting Tomcat 6 jars in an Apache Maven repository. I've been building with NetBeans and not Maven. So someone who is more Maven savvy will need to update things so it builds correctly. I don't think it will be more complicated than adding and removing some dependencies. Stan Silvert JBoss, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] callto://stansilvert -Original Message- From: Manfred Geiler [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 8:48 PM To: MyFaces Development Subject: Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting] Sean, Can you please make a copy of the current trunk to /myfaces/core/branches/jsf_1_2 ? After that, Stan can simply (?) merge his stuff inside that. Is that ok, Stan? Manfred On 5/18/06, Sean Schofield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You want a 1.2 branch for core only using the latest trunk right? I can create it for you if you want ... Sean On 5/18/06, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Manfred, can you go ahead with that 1.2 branch? regards
Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting]
Please no multiple branches. Thanks. Dennis Byrne -Original Message- From: Sean Schofield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 12:56 PM To: 'MyFaces Development', [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting] OK so Stan is past the TC 5.5 point. Why do we need two branches? Can't we just say that 1.2 depends on TC 6.0 or Glassfish? I still think we need to do everything we can to avoid multiple branches. Sean On 5/24/06, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No. The current build should be compatible again - if I don't have old information here... regards, Martin On 5/24/06, Sean Schofield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So does this mean that our Tomahawk releases are no longer compatible with the RI? That's our current problem right? Sean On 5/24/06, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is no 1.1 compliant way of fixing dummyform - there just isn't. I would have gone with a single branch for 1.2 and checking in TC5.5 compatible stuff only, but Stan has already worked on 1.2, and he has implemented also TC6 depending things, so no chance to go with this, except we want to loose what Stan did, and I wouldn't. I want to do development on the 1.1 branch for bugfixes only anymore. 1.2 is our future, and we should go there! regards, Martin On 5/23/06, Sean Schofield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are we talking about the fix for DummyForm? Are we not going to attempt to have a 1.1 compatible fix? What about a single branch for 1.2 and only check in the Tomcat 5.5 compatible stuff? I agree with Craig that you don't want to be actively developing on the trunk plus two branches. Trust me, its difficult enough managing this when we have a short-lived branch for a release. -1 for a long-term double branch strategy. Sean On 5/23/06, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's just that we need the 1.2 features for several things we want to fix right now - and TC6 is still not released, so we can't work with the full feature set of 1.2. regards, Martin On 5/22/06, Sean Schofield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why is there a need to have a separate branch for TC6 vs. TC55. Sorry if I missed the discussion on the need for this ... Sean On 5/22/06, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Craig, critical fixes to 1.1. - 1.1 branch major development -- trunk special things for 1.2 under TC6 only -- 1.2 branch With this, it should be albe to merge down the 1.2 branch to the trunk, right? regards, Martin On 5/22/06, Craig McClanahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 5/21/06, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok, one more addition to the discussion - I'll want to branches. One for JSF1.2 things which cannot be used together with Tomcat 5.5 and, one for JSF1.2 things which can be used with Tomcat 5.5. I'd love trunk to be the JSF1.2/Tomcat 5.5 branch, and have bug fixes for 1.1 on a real branch. summary: 1.1 -- branch 1.2 Tomcat 6 -- branch 1.2 Tomcat 5.5. -- trunk is that ok? Wouldn't this mean that every change that worked under 5.5 would need to be committed to both branches? That seems like a good way to slow down the effort to achieve 1.2 compliance. regards, Martin Craig On 5/19/06, Stan Silvert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That would be fine. After I am done we may need some help from Sean. He was talking about putting Tomcat 6 jars in an Apache Maven repository. I've been building with NetBeans and not Maven. So someone who is more Maven savvy will need to update things so it builds correctly. I don't think it will be more complicated than adding and removing some dependencies. Stan Silvert JBoss, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] callto://stansilvert -Original Message- From: Manfred Geiler [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 8:48 PM To: MyFaces Development Subject: Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting] Sean, Can you please make a copy of the current trunk to /myfaces/core/branches/jsf_1_2
Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting]
@Sean: It's easy - I won't put in the work to do it if I can't work with the version I have at hand. And I can't work with it when it relies on TC6.0 (and I won't switch over to Glassfish right now). I guess that I'll not be the only one. It's as easy as that. I promise to be the one to do the merging later on. One more thing: there will be one branch only (JSF 1.2 TC 6) - the trunk will JSF 1.2 TC 5.5. The other branch will be our bugfixes-only JSF1.1 branch - no major work being done there. I'd also say that if we want to get a bugfix in this branch, we should get it in in the JSF 1.2 TC 5.5 as well, right when the bugfix is applied. With this we save ourselves the hassle of merging too much here. @Dennis, you don't see the necessities to start with the major features of the 1.2 implementation right now, even when TC 6.0 is not yet available? regards, Martin On 5/24/06, Dennis Byrne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please no multiple branches. Thanks. Dennis Byrne -Original Message- From: Sean Schofield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 12:56 PM To: 'MyFaces Development', [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting] OK so Stan is past the TC 5.5 point. Why do we need two branches? Can't we just say that 1.2 depends on TC 6.0 or Glassfish? I still think we need to do everything we can to avoid multiple branches. Sean On 5/24/06, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No. The current build should be compatible again - if I don't have old information here... regards, Martin On 5/24/06, Sean Schofield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So does this mean that our Tomahawk releases are no longer compatible with the RI? That's our current problem right? Sean On 5/24/06, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is no 1.1 compliant way of fixing dummyform - there just isn't. I would have gone with a single branch for 1.2 and checking in TC5.5 compatible stuff only, but Stan has already worked on 1.2, and he has implemented also TC6 depending things, so no chance to go with this, except we want to loose what Stan did, and I wouldn't. I want to do development on the 1.1 branch for bugfixes only anymore. 1.2 is our future, and we should go there! regards, Martin On 5/23/06, Sean Schofield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are we talking about the fix for DummyForm? Are we not going to attempt to have a 1.1 compatible fix? What about a single branch for 1.2 and only check in the Tomcat 5.5 compatible stuff? I agree with Craig that you don't want to be actively developing on the trunk plus two branches. Trust me, its difficult enough managing this when we have a short-lived branch for a release. -1 for a long-term double branch strategy. Sean On 5/23/06, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's just that we need the 1.2 features for several things we want to fix right now - and TC6 is still not released, so we can't work with the full feature set of 1.2. regards, Martin On 5/22/06, Sean Schofield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why is there a need to have a separate branch for TC6 vs. TC55. Sorry if I missed the discussion on the need for this ... Sean On 5/22/06, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Craig, critical fixes to 1.1. - 1.1 branch major development -- trunk special things for 1.2 under TC6 only -- 1.2 branch With this, it should be albe to merge down the 1.2 branch to the trunk, right? regards, Martin On 5/22/06, Craig McClanahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 5/21/06, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok, one more addition to the discussion - I'll want to branches. One for JSF1.2 things which cannot be used together with Tomcat 5.5 and, one for JSF1.2 things which can be used with Tomcat 5.5. I'd love trunk to be the JSF1.2/Tomcat 5.5 branch, and have bug fixes for 1.1 on a real branch. summary: 1.1 -- branch 1.2 Tomcat 6 -- branch 1.2 Tomcat 5.5. -- trunk is that ok? Wouldn't this mean that every change that worked under 5.5 would need to be committed to both branches? That seems like a good way to slow down the effort to achieve 1.2 compliance. regards, Martin Craig On 5/19/06, Stan Silvert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That would be fine. After I am done we may need some help from Sean. He was talking about putting Tomcat 6 jars in an Apache Maven repository
Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting]
@Dennis, you don't see the necessities to start with the major features of the 1.2 implementation right now, even when TC 6.0 is not yet available? Yes, 1.2 is important. But I am under the impression I can use facelets until TC 6 is released. Besides, most of the work I do in core is in Junit rather than a container. Dennis Byrne regards, Martin On 5/24/06, Dennis Byrne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please no multiple branches. Thanks. Dennis Byrne -Original Message- From: Sean Schofield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 12:56 PM To: 'MyFaces Development', [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting] OK so Stan is past the TC 5.5 point. Why do we need two branches? Can't we just say that 1.2 depends on TC 6.0 or Glassfish? I still think we need to do everything we can to avoid multiple branches. Sean On 5/24/06, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No. The current build should be compatible again - if I don't have old information here... regards, Martin On 5/24/06, Sean Schofield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So does this mean that our Tomahawk releases are no longer compatible with the RI? That's our current problem right? Sean On 5/24/06, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is no 1.1 compliant way of fixing dummyform - there just isn't. I would have gone with a single branch for 1.2 and checking in TC5.5 compatible stuff only, but Stan has already worked on 1.2, and he has implemented also TC6 depending things, so no chance to go with this, except we want to loose what Stan did, and I wouldn't. I want to do development on the 1.1 branch for bugfixes only anymore. 1.2 is our future, and we should go there! regards, Martin On 5/23/06, Sean Schofield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are we talking about the fix for DummyForm? Are we not going to attempt to have a 1.1 compatible fix? What about a single branch for 1.2 and only check in the Tomcat 5.5 compatible stuff? I agree with Craig that you don't want to be actively developing on the trunk plus two branches. Trust me, its difficult enough managing this when we have a short-lived branch for a release. -1 for a long-term double branch strategy. Sean On 5/23/06, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's just that we need the 1.2 features for several things we want to fix right now - and TC6 is still not released, so we can't work with the full feature set of 1.2. regards, Martin On 5/22/06, Sean Schofield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why is there a need to have a separate branch for TC6 vs. TC55. Sorry if I missed the discussion on the need for this ... Sean On 5/22/06, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Craig, critical fixes to 1.1. - 1.1 branch major development -- trunk special things for 1.2 under TC6 only -- 1.2 branch With this, it should be albe to merge down the 1.2 branch to the trunk, right? regards, Martin On 5/22/06, Craig McClanahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 5/21/06, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok, one more addition to the discussion - I'll want to branches. One for JSF1.2 things which cannot be used together with Tomcat 5.5 and, one for JSF1.2 things which can be used with Tomcat 5.5. I'd love trunk to be the JSF1.2/Tomcat 5.5 branch, and have bug fixes for 1.1 on a real branch. summary: 1.1 -- branch 1.2 Tomcat 6 -- branch 1.2 Tomcat 5.5. -- trunk is that ok? Wouldn't this mean that every change that worked under 5.5 would need to be committed to both branches? That seems like a good way to slow down the effort to achieve 1.2 compliance. regards, Martin Craig On 5/19/06, Stan Silvert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That would be fine. After I am done we may need some help from Sean. He was talking about putting Tomcat 6 jars in an Apache Maven repository. I've been building with NetBeans and not Maven. So someone who is more Maven savvy will need to update things so it builds correctly. I don't think it will be more complicated than adding and removing some
Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting]
until TC 6 is released. Besides, most of the work I do in core is in Junit rather than a container. if it is just the availability of jsp 2.1 jars, the jetty folks have their own (public) maven2 repo -Matthias
Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting]
It's just that we need the 1.2 features for several things we want to fix right now - and TC6 is still not released, so we can't work with the full feature set of 1.2. regards, Martin On 5/22/06, Sean Schofield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why is there a need to have a separate branch for TC6 vs. TC55. Sorry if I missed the discussion on the need for this ... Sean On 5/22/06, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Craig, critical fixes to 1.1. - 1.1 branch major development -- trunk special things for 1.2 under TC6 only -- 1.2 branch With this, it should be albe to merge down the 1.2 branch to the trunk, right? regards, Martin On 5/22/06, Craig McClanahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 5/21/06, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok, one more addition to the discussion - I'll want to branches. One for JSF1.2 things which cannot be used together with Tomcat 5.5 and, one for JSF1.2 things which can be used with Tomcat 5.5. I'd love trunk to be the JSF1.2/Tomcat 5.5 branch, and have bug fixes for 1.1 on a real branch. summary: 1.1 -- branch 1.2 Tomcat 6 -- branch 1.2 Tomcat 5.5. -- trunk is that ok? Wouldn't this mean that every change that worked under 5.5 would need to be committed to both branches? That seems like a good way to slow down the effort to achieve 1.2 compliance. regards, Martin Craig On 5/19/06, Stan Silvert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That would be fine. After I am done we may need some help from Sean. He was talking about putting Tomcat 6 jars in an Apache Maven repository. I've been building with NetBeans and not Maven. So someone who is more Maven savvy will need to update things so it builds correctly. I don't think it will be more complicated than adding and removing some dependencies. Stan Silvert JBoss, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] callto://stansilvert -Original Message- From: Manfred Geiler [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 8:48 PM To: MyFaces Development Subject: Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting] Sean, Can you please make a copy of the current trunk to /myfaces/core/branches/jsf_1_2 ? After that, Stan can simply (?) merge his stuff inside that. Is that ok, Stan? Manfred On 5/18/06, Sean Schofield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You want a 1.2 branch for core only using the latest trunk right? I can create it for you if you want ... Sean On 5/18/06, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Manfred, can you go ahead with that 1.2 branch? regards, Martin On 5/18/06, Thomas Spiegl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm having a look at tomahawk 416 +1 for creating a 1.2 branch On 5/18/06, Stan Silvert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have implemented most of the new core API's and fixed most of the deprecated ones to be backwards compatible with 1.1 (if you look at the 1.2 javadocs you'll see what I mean). If you look at the section in the spec preface entitled What's Changed Since the Last Release you can get a feel for what I did. I've pretty much done everything in that list. Most of it is covered under this issue, which just says to implement several sections of the spec: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MYFACES-1274 I believe all of 1274 is complete except ApplicationImpl.getResourceBundle (). I needed code that reads the new faces-context.xml for that one. However, all the ELResolver stuff is done including the ResourceBundleELResolver. I've also done some of the issues listed under General Changes. For each item in that list, I created a Jira task. You can look at Jira and see which ones I did. I was just getting started on the javax.faces.webapp package when I was taken off of the project. I probably won't commit any changes from that. I didn't touch the components or renderer at all. With all the backward-compatible code I wrote, it appears that all the components still work even though they are written the 1.1 way. So, hopefully, what you guys will have to start with is a JSF 1.2 impl that is about half-way done and still works. Stan Silvert JBoss, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] callto://stansilvert -Original Message- From: Thomas Spiegl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Sent: Wednesday
Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting]
Are we talking about the fix for DummyForm? Are we not going to attempt to have a 1.1 compatible fix? What about a single branch for 1.2 and only check in the Tomcat 5.5 compatible stuff? I agree with Craig that you don't want to be actively developing on the trunk plus two branches. Trust me, its difficult enough managing this when we have a short-lived branch for a release. -1 for a long-term double branch strategy. Sean On 5/23/06, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's just that we need the 1.2 features for several things we want to fix right now - and TC6 is still not released, so we can't work with the full feature set of 1.2. regards, Martin On 5/22/06, Sean Schofield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why is there a need to have a separate branch for TC6 vs. TC55. Sorry if I missed the discussion on the need for this ... Sean On 5/22/06, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Craig, critical fixes to 1.1. - 1.1 branch major development -- trunk special things for 1.2 under TC6 only -- 1.2 branch With this, it should be albe to merge down the 1.2 branch to the trunk, right? regards, Martin On 5/22/06, Craig McClanahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 5/21/06, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok, one more addition to the discussion - I'll want to branches. One for JSF1.2 things which cannot be used together with Tomcat 5.5 and, one for JSF1.2 things which can be used with Tomcat 5.5. I'd love trunk to be the JSF1.2/Tomcat 5.5 branch, and have bug fixes for 1.1 on a real branch. summary: 1.1 -- branch 1.2 Tomcat 6 -- branch 1.2 Tomcat 5.5. -- trunk is that ok? Wouldn't this mean that every change that worked under 5.5 would need to be committed to both branches? That seems like a good way to slow down the effort to achieve 1.2 compliance. regards, Martin Craig On 5/19/06, Stan Silvert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That would be fine. After I am done we may need some help from Sean. He was talking about putting Tomcat 6 jars in an Apache Maven repository. I've been building with NetBeans and not Maven. So someone who is more Maven savvy will need to update things so it builds correctly. I don't think it will be more complicated than adding and removing some dependencies. Stan Silvert JBoss, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] callto://stansilvert -Original Message- From: Manfred Geiler [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 8:48 PM To: MyFaces Development Subject: Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting] Sean, Can you please make a copy of the current trunk to /myfaces/core/branches/jsf_1_2 ? After that, Stan can simply (?) merge his stuff inside that. Is that ok, Stan? Manfred On 5/18/06, Sean Schofield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You want a 1.2 branch for core only using the latest trunk right? I can create it for you if you want ... Sean On 5/18/06, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Manfred, can you go ahead with that 1.2 branch? regards, Martin On 5/18/06, Thomas Spiegl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm having a look at tomahawk 416 +1 for creating a 1.2 branch On 5/18/06, Stan Silvert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have implemented most of the new core API's and fixed most of the deprecated ones to be backwards compatible with 1.1 (if you look at the 1.2 javadocs you'll see what I mean). If you look at the section in the spec preface entitled What's Changed Since the Last Release you can get a feel for what I did. I've pretty much done everything in that list. Most of it is covered under this issue, which just says to implement several sections of the spec: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MYFACES-1274 I believe all of 1274 is complete except ApplicationImpl.getResourceBundle (). I needed code that reads the new faces-context.xml for that one. However, all the ELResolver stuff is done including the ResourceBundleELResolver. I've also done some of the issues listed under General Changes. For each item in that list, I created a Jira task. You can look at Jira and see which ones I did. I was just getting started on the javax.faces.webapp package when I was taken off of the project. I probably won't commit any
Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting]
On 5/21/06, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok,one more addition to the discussion - I'll want to branches. One forJSF1.2 things which cannot be used together with Tomcat 5.5 and, onefor JSF1.2 things which can be used with Tomcat 5.5. I'd love trunk to be the JSF1.2/Tomcat 5.5 branch, and have bug fixes for 1.1 on a realbranch.summary:1.1 -- branch1.2 Tomcat 6 -- branch1.2 Tomcat 5.5. -- trunkis that ok? Wouldn't this mean that every change that worked under 5.5 would need to be committed to both branches? That seems like a good way to slow down the effort to achieve 1.2 compliance. regards,MartinCraigOn 5/19/06, Stan Silvert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That would be fine.After I am done we may need some help from Sean. He was talking about putting Tomcat 6 jars in an Apache Maven repository. I've been building with NetBeans and not Maven.So someone who is more Maven savvy will need to update things so it builds correctly.I don't think it will be more complicated than adding and removing some dependencies. Stan Silvert JBoss, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] callto://stansilvert -Original Message- From: Manfred Geiler [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 8:48 PM To: MyFaces Development Subject: Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting] Sean, Can you please make a copy of the current trunk to /myfaces/core/branches/jsf_1_2 ? After that, Stan can simply (?) merge his stuff inside that. Is that ok, Stan? ManfredOn 5/18/06, Sean Schofield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You want a 1.2 branch for core only using the latest trunk right?I can create it for you if you want ... Sean On 5/18/06, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Manfred, can you go ahead with that 1.2 branch? regards, Martin On 5/18/06, Thomas Spiegl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm having a look at tomahawk 416 +1 for creating a 1.2 branch On 5/18/06, Stan Silvert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have implemented most of the new core API's and fixed most of the deprecated ones to be backwards compatible with 1.1 (if you look at the 1.2 javadocs you'll see what I mean).If you look at the section in the spec preface entitled What's Changed Since the Last Release you can get a feel for what I did.I've pretty much done everything in that list. Most of it is covered under this issue, which just says to implement several sections of the spec: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MYFACES-1274 I believe all of 1274 is complete except ApplicationImpl.getResourceBundle ().I needed code that reads the new faces-context.xml for that one.However, all the ELResolver stuff is done including the ResourceBundleELResolver. I've also done some of the issues listed under General Changes. For each item in that list, I created a Jira task.You can look at Jira and see which ones I did. I was just getting started on the javax.faces.webapp package when I was taken off of the project.I probably won't commit any changes from that.I didn't touch the components or renderer at all.With all the backward-compatible code I wrote, it appears that all the components still work even though they are written the 1.1 way. So, hopefully, what you guys will have to start with is a JSF 1.2 impl that is about half-way done and still works. Stan Silvert JBoss, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] callto://stansilvert -Original Message- From: Thomas Spiegl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 4:58 PM To: MyFaces Development; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting] +1 for solving tomahawk 416, being incompatible to RI is a serious issue Stan which 1.2 issues did you fix. Did you change any link renderers? If not, i am +1 for open a 1.2 branch On 5/17/06, Werner Punz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Sean Schofield schrieb: I'm -1 on the 1.2 branch.There are major issues to be fixed in the core right now.(See TOMAHAWK-416 and related dev discussions.) I know that Stan is anxious but given the lack of interest in the core trunk, its hard to imagine we have enough support to sustain this branch.Do we have firm committments from anyone else besides Stan?+1 for a fork... the reason we need to get going asap and a fork helps.If we wait for another bunch of issues to be fixed, this will never end. Sorry to say that so harsh, but the time on 1.2 is really pressing,given that there wont be an option in jee to override the default JSFimplementation via other libs in WEB
Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting]
Hi Craig, critical fixes to 1.1. - 1.1 branch major development -- trunk special things for 1.2 under TC6 only -- 1.2 branch With this, it should be albe to merge down the 1.2 branch to the trunk, right? regards, Martin On 5/22/06, Craig McClanahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 5/21/06, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok, one more addition to the discussion - I'll want to branches. One for JSF1.2 things which cannot be used together with Tomcat 5.5 and, one for JSF1.2 things which can be used with Tomcat 5.5. I'd love trunk to be the JSF1.2/Tomcat 5.5 branch, and have bug fixes for 1.1 on a real branch. summary: 1.1 -- branch 1.2 Tomcat 6 -- branch 1.2 Tomcat 5.5. -- trunk is that ok? Wouldn't this mean that every change that worked under 5.5 would need to be committed to both branches? That seems like a good way to slow down the effort to achieve 1.2 compliance. regards, Martin Craig On 5/19/06, Stan Silvert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That would be fine. After I am done we may need some help from Sean. He was talking about putting Tomcat 6 jars in an Apache Maven repository. I've been building with NetBeans and not Maven. So someone who is more Maven savvy will need to update things so it builds correctly. I don't think it will be more complicated than adding and removing some dependencies. Stan Silvert JBoss, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] callto://stansilvert -Original Message- From: Manfred Geiler [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 8:48 PM To: MyFaces Development Subject: Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting] Sean, Can you please make a copy of the current trunk to /myfaces/core/branches/jsf_1_2 ? After that, Stan can simply (?) merge his stuff inside that. Is that ok, Stan? Manfred On 5/18/06, Sean Schofield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You want a 1.2 branch for core only using the latest trunk right? I can create it for you if you want ... Sean On 5/18/06, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Manfred, can you go ahead with that 1.2 branch? regards, Martin On 5/18/06, Thomas Spiegl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm having a look at tomahawk 416 +1 for creating a 1.2 branch On 5/18/06, Stan Silvert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have implemented most of the new core API's and fixed most of the deprecated ones to be backwards compatible with 1.1 (if you look at the 1.2 javadocs you'll see what I mean). If you look at the section in the spec preface entitled What's Changed Since the Last Release you can get a feel for what I did. I've pretty much done everything in that list. Most of it is covered under this issue, which just says to implement several sections of the spec: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MYFACES-1274 I believe all of 1274 is complete except ApplicationImpl.getResourceBundle (). I needed code that reads the new faces-context.xml for that one. However, all the ELResolver stuff is done including the ResourceBundleELResolver. I've also done some of the issues listed under General Changes. For each item in that list, I created a Jira task. You can look at Jira and see which ones I did. I was just getting started on the javax.faces.webapp package when I was taken off of the project. I probably won't commit any changes from that. I didn't touch the components or renderer at all. With all the backward-compatible code I wrote, it appears that all the components still work even though they are written the 1.1 way. So, hopefully, what you guys will have to start with is a JSF 1.2 impl that is about half-way done and still works. Stan Silvert JBoss, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] callto://stansilvert -Original Message- From: Thomas Spiegl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 4:58 PM To: MyFaces Development; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting] +1 for solving tomahawk 416, being incompatible to RI is a serious issue Stan which 1.2 issues did you fix. Did you change any link renderers? If not, i am +1 for open a 1.2 branch On 5/17/06, Werner Punz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sean Schofield schrieb: I'm -1 on the 1.2 branch. There are major issues to be fixed in the core right now. (See TOMAHAWK-416 and related dev discussions.) I know that Stan
Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting]
Why is there a need to have a separate branch for TC6 vs. TC55. Sorry if I missed the discussion on the need for this ... Sean On 5/22/06, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Craig, critical fixes to 1.1. - 1.1 branch major development -- trunk special things for 1.2 under TC6 only -- 1.2 branch With this, it should be albe to merge down the 1.2 branch to the trunk, right? regards, Martin On 5/22/06, Craig McClanahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 5/21/06, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok, one more addition to the discussion - I'll want to branches. One for JSF1.2 things which cannot be used together with Tomcat 5.5 and, one for JSF1.2 things which can be used with Tomcat 5.5. I'd love trunk to be the JSF1.2/Tomcat 5.5 branch, and have bug fixes for 1.1 on a real branch. summary: 1.1 -- branch 1.2 Tomcat 6 -- branch 1.2 Tomcat 5.5. -- trunk is that ok? Wouldn't this mean that every change that worked under 5.5 would need to be committed to both branches? That seems like a good way to slow down the effort to achieve 1.2 compliance. regards, Martin Craig On 5/19/06, Stan Silvert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That would be fine. After I am done we may need some help from Sean. He was talking about putting Tomcat 6 jars in an Apache Maven repository. I've been building with NetBeans and not Maven. So someone who is more Maven savvy will need to update things so it builds correctly. I don't think it will be more complicated than adding and removing some dependencies. Stan Silvert JBoss, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] callto://stansilvert -Original Message- From: Manfred Geiler [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 8:48 PM To: MyFaces Development Subject: Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting] Sean, Can you please make a copy of the current trunk to /myfaces/core/branches/jsf_1_2 ? After that, Stan can simply (?) merge his stuff inside that. Is that ok, Stan? Manfred On 5/18/06, Sean Schofield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You want a 1.2 branch for core only using the latest trunk right? I can create it for you if you want ... Sean On 5/18/06, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Manfred, can you go ahead with that 1.2 branch? regards, Martin On 5/18/06, Thomas Spiegl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm having a look at tomahawk 416 +1 for creating a 1.2 branch On 5/18/06, Stan Silvert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have implemented most of the new core API's and fixed most of the deprecated ones to be backwards compatible with 1.1 (if you look at the 1.2 javadocs you'll see what I mean). If you look at the section in the spec preface entitled What's Changed Since the Last Release you can get a feel for what I did. I've pretty much done everything in that list. Most of it is covered under this issue, which just says to implement several sections of the spec: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MYFACES-1274 I believe all of 1274 is complete except ApplicationImpl.getResourceBundle (). I needed code that reads the new faces-context.xml for that one. However, all the ELResolver stuff is done including the ResourceBundleELResolver. I've also done some of the issues listed under General Changes. For each item in that list, I created a Jira task. You can look at Jira and see which ones I did. I was just getting started on the javax.faces.webapp package when I was taken off of the project. I probably won't commit any changes from that. I didn't touch the components or renderer at all. With all the backward-compatible code I wrote, it appears that all the components still work even though they are written the 1.1 way. So, hopefully, what you guys will have to start with is a JSF 1.2 impl that is about half-way done and still works. Stan Silvert JBoss, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] callto://stansilvert -Original Message- From: Thomas Spiegl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 4:58 PM To: MyFaces Development; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting] +1 for solving tomahawk 416, being incompatible to RI is a serious issue Stan which 1.2 issues did you fix. Did you change any link renderers? If not, i am
Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting]
Ok, one more addition to the discussion - I'll want to branches. One for JSF1.2 things which cannot be used together with Tomcat 5.5 and, one for JSF1.2 things which can be used with Tomcat 5.5. I'd love trunk to be the JSF1.2/Tomcat 5.5 branch, and have bug fixes for 1.1 on a real branch. summary: 1.1 -- branch 1.2 Tomcat 6 -- branch 1.2 Tomcat 5.5. -- trunk is that ok? regards, Martin On 5/19/06, Stan Silvert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That would be fine. After I am done we may need some help from Sean. He was talking about putting Tomcat 6 jars in an Apache Maven repository. I've been building with NetBeans and not Maven. So someone who is more Maven savvy will need to update things so it builds correctly. I don't think it will be more complicated than adding and removing some dependencies. Stan Silvert JBoss, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] callto://stansilvert -Original Message- From: Manfred Geiler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 8:48 PM To: MyFaces Development Subject: Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting] Sean, Can you please make a copy of the current trunk to /myfaces/core/branches/jsf_1_2 ? After that, Stan can simply (?) merge his stuff inside that. Is that ok, Stan? Manfred On 5/18/06, Sean Schofield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You want a 1.2 branch for core only using the latest trunk right? I can create it for you if you want ... Sean On 5/18/06, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Manfred, can you go ahead with that 1.2 branch? regards, Martin On 5/18/06, Thomas Spiegl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm having a look at tomahawk 416 +1 for creating a 1.2 branch On 5/18/06, Stan Silvert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have implemented most of the new core API's and fixed most of the deprecated ones to be backwards compatible with 1.1 (if you look at the 1.2 javadocs you'll see what I mean). If you look at the section in the spec preface entitled What's Changed Since the Last Release you can get a feel for what I did. I've pretty much done everything in that list. Most of it is covered under this issue, which just says to implement several sections of the spec: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MYFACES-1274 I believe all of 1274 is complete except ApplicationImpl.getResourceBundle(). I needed code that reads the new faces-context.xml for that one. However, all the ELResolver stuff is done including the ResourceBundleELResolver. I've also done some of the issues listed under General Changes. For each item in that list, I created a Jira task. You can look at Jira and see which ones I did. I was just getting started on the javax.faces.webapp package when I was taken off of the project. I probably won't commit any changes from that. I didn't touch the components or renderer at all. With all the backward-compatible code I wrote, it appears that all the components still work even though they are written the 1.1 way. So, hopefully, what you guys will have to start with is a JSF 1.2 impl that is about half-way done and still works. Stan Silvert JBoss, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] callto://stansilvert -Original Message- From: Thomas Spiegl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 4:58 PM To: MyFaces Development; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting] +1 for solving tomahawk 416, being incompatible to RI is a serious issue Stan which 1.2 issues did you fix. Did you change any link renderers? If not, i am +1 for open a 1.2 branch On 5/17/06, Werner Punz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sean Schofield schrieb: I'm -1 on the 1.2 branch. There are major issues to be fixed in the core right now. (See TOMAHAWK-416 and related dev discussions.) I know that Stan is anxious but given the lack of interest in the core trunk, its hard to imagine we have enough support to sustain this branch. Do we have firm committments from anyone else besides Stan? +1 for a fork... the reason we need to get going asap and a fork helps. If we wait for another bunch of issues to be fixed, this will never end. Sorry to say that so harsh, but the time on 1.2 is really pressing, given that there wont be an option in jee to override the default JSF implementation via other libs in WEB-INF/lib like it was possible in JEE4 -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German
Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting]
Martin Marinschek wrote: 1.1 -- branch 1.2 Tomcat 6 -- branch 1.2 Tomcat 5.5. -- trunk +1 It might be also great to have more of those current virtual directory, say branch11 current12tc6 current12tc5 (=current too) I'd name both 1.2 current as sometimes in the future the tc6 stuff will be trunk again and for now I expect these two lines run parallel. Ciao, Mario
Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting]
I'm having a look at tomahawk 416 +1 for creating a 1.2 branch On 5/18/06, Stan Silvert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have implemented most of the new core API's and fixed most of the deprecated ones to be backwards compatible with 1.1 (if you look at the 1.2 javadocs you'll see what I mean). If you look at the section in the spec preface entitled What's Changed Since the Last Release you can get a feel for what I did. I've pretty much done everything in that list. Most of it is covered under this issue, which just says to implement several sections of the spec: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MYFACES-1274 I believe all of 1274 is complete except ApplicationImpl.getResourceBundle(). I needed code that reads the new faces-context.xml for that one. However, all the ELResolver stuff is done including the ResourceBundleELResolver. I've also done some of the issues listed under General Changes. For each item in that list, I created a Jira task. You can look at Jira and see which ones I did. I was just getting started on the javax.faces.webapp package when I was taken off of the project. I probably won't commit any changes from that. I didn't touch the components or renderer at all. With all the backward-compatible code I wrote, it appears that all the components still work even though they are written the 1.1 way. So, hopefully, what you guys will have to start with is a JSF 1.2 impl that is about half-way done and still works. Stan Silvert JBoss, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] callto://stansilvert -Original Message- From: Thomas Spiegl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 4:58 PM To: MyFaces Development; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting] +1 for solving tomahawk 416, being incompatible to RI is a serious issue Stan which 1.2 issues did you fix. Did you change any link renderers? If not, i am +1 for open a 1.2 branch On 5/17/06, Werner Punz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sean Schofield schrieb: I'm -1 on the 1.2 branch. There are major issues to be fixed in the core right now. (See TOMAHAWK-416 and related dev discussions.) I know that Stan is anxious but given the lack of interest in the core trunk, its hard to imagine we have enough support to sustain this branch. Do we have firm committments from anyone else besides Stan? +1 for a fork... the reason we need to get going asap and a fork helps. If we wait for another bunch of issues to be fixed, this will never end. Sorry to say that so harsh, but the time on 1.2 is really pressing, given that there wont be an option in jee to override the default JSF implementation via other libs in WEB-INF/lib like it was possible in JEE4 -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting]
Manfred, can you go ahead with that 1.2 branch? regards, Martin On 5/18/06, Thomas Spiegl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm having a look at tomahawk 416 +1 for creating a 1.2 branch On 5/18/06, Stan Silvert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have implemented most of the new core API's and fixed most of the deprecated ones to be backwards compatible with 1.1 (if you look at the 1.2 javadocs you'll see what I mean). If you look at the section in the spec preface entitled What's Changed Since the Last Release you can get a feel for what I did. I've pretty much done everything in that list. Most of it is covered under this issue, which just says to implement several sections of the spec: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MYFACES-1274 I believe all of 1274 is complete except ApplicationImpl.getResourceBundle(). I needed code that reads the new faces-context.xml for that one. However, all the ELResolver stuff is done including the ResourceBundleELResolver. I've also done some of the issues listed under General Changes. For each item in that list, I created a Jira task. You can look at Jira and see which ones I did. I was just getting started on the javax.faces.webapp package when I was taken off of the project. I probably won't commit any changes from that. I didn't touch the components or renderer at all. With all the backward-compatible code I wrote, it appears that all the components still work even though they are written the 1.1 way. So, hopefully, what you guys will have to start with is a JSF 1.2 impl that is about half-way done and still works. Stan Silvert JBoss, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] callto://stansilvert -Original Message- From: Thomas Spiegl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 4:58 PM To: MyFaces Development; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting] +1 for solving tomahawk 416, being incompatible to RI is a serious issue Stan which 1.2 issues did you fix. Did you change any link renderers? If not, i am +1 for open a 1.2 branch On 5/17/06, Werner Punz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sean Schofield schrieb: I'm -1 on the 1.2 branch. There are major issues to be fixed in the core right now. (See TOMAHAWK-416 and related dev discussions.) I know that Stan is anxious but given the lack of interest in the core trunk, its hard to imagine we have enough support to sustain this branch. Do we have firm committments from anyone else besides Stan? +1 for a fork... the reason we need to get going asap and a fork helps. If we wait for another bunch of issues to be fixed, this will never end. Sorry to say that so harsh, but the time on 1.2 is really pressing, given that there wont be an option in jee to override the default JSF implementation via other libs in WEB-INF/lib like it was possible in JEE4 -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting]
You want a 1.2 branch for core only using the latest trunk right? I can create it for you if you want ... Sean On 5/18/06, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Manfred, can you go ahead with that 1.2 branch? regards, Martin On 5/18/06, Thomas Spiegl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm having a look at tomahawk 416 +1 for creating a 1.2 branch On 5/18/06, Stan Silvert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have implemented most of the new core API's and fixed most of the deprecated ones to be backwards compatible with 1.1 (if you look at the 1.2 javadocs you'll see what I mean). If you look at the section in the spec preface entitled What's Changed Since the Last Release you can get a feel for what I did. I've pretty much done everything in that list. Most of it is covered under this issue, which just says to implement several sections of the spec: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MYFACES-1274 I believe all of 1274 is complete except ApplicationImpl.getResourceBundle(). I needed code that reads the new faces-context.xml for that one. However, all the ELResolver stuff is done including the ResourceBundleELResolver. I've also done some of the issues listed under General Changes. For each item in that list, I created a Jira task. You can look at Jira and see which ones I did. I was just getting started on the javax.faces.webapp package when I was taken off of the project. I probably won't commit any changes from that. I didn't touch the components or renderer at all. With all the backward-compatible code I wrote, it appears that all the components still work even though they are written the 1.1 way. So, hopefully, what you guys will have to start with is a JSF 1.2 impl that is about half-way done and still works. Stan Silvert JBoss, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] callto://stansilvert -Original Message- From: Thomas Spiegl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 4:58 PM To: MyFaces Development; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting] +1 for solving tomahawk 416, being incompatible to RI is a serious issue Stan which 1.2 issues did you fix. Did you change any link renderers? If not, i am +1 for open a 1.2 branch On 5/17/06, Werner Punz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sean Schofield schrieb: I'm -1 on the 1.2 branch. There are major issues to be fixed in the core right now. (See TOMAHAWK-416 and related dev discussions.) I know that Stan is anxious but given the lack of interest in the core trunk, its hard to imagine we have enough support to sustain this branch. Do we have firm committments from anyone else besides Stan? +1 for a fork... the reason we need to get going asap and a fork helps. If we wait for another bunch of issues to be fixed, this will never end. Sorry to say that so harsh, but the time on 1.2 is really pressing, given that there wont be an option in jee to override the default JSF implementation via other libs in WEB-INF/lib like it was possible in JEE4 -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting]
Sean, Can you please make a copy of the current trunk to /myfaces/core/branches/jsf_1_2 ? After that, Stan can simply (?) merge his stuff inside that. Is that ok, Stan? Manfred On 5/18/06, Sean Schofield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You want a 1.2 branch for core only using the latest trunk right? I can create it for you if you want ... Sean On 5/18/06, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Manfred, can you go ahead with that 1.2 branch? regards, Martin On 5/18/06, Thomas Spiegl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm having a look at tomahawk 416 +1 for creating a 1.2 branch On 5/18/06, Stan Silvert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have implemented most of the new core API's and fixed most of the deprecated ones to be backwards compatible with 1.1 (if you look at the 1.2 javadocs you'll see what I mean). If you look at the section in the spec preface entitled What's Changed Since the Last Release you can get a feel for what I did. I've pretty much done everything in that list. Most of it is covered under this issue, which just says to implement several sections of the spec: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MYFACES-1274 I believe all of 1274 is complete except ApplicationImpl.getResourceBundle(). I needed code that reads the new faces-context.xml for that one. However, all the ELResolver stuff is done including the ResourceBundleELResolver. I've also done some of the issues listed under General Changes. For each item in that list, I created a Jira task. You can look at Jira and see which ones I did. I was just getting started on the javax.faces.webapp package when I was taken off of the project. I probably won't commit any changes from that. I didn't touch the components or renderer at all. With all the backward-compatible code I wrote, it appears that all the components still work even though they are written the 1.1 way. So, hopefully, what you guys will have to start with is a JSF 1.2 impl that is about half-way done and still works. Stan Silvert JBoss, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] callto://stansilvert -Original Message- From: Thomas Spiegl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 4:58 PM To: MyFaces Development; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting] +1 for solving tomahawk 416, being incompatible to RI is a serious issue Stan which 1.2 issues did you fix. Did you change any link renderers? If not, i am +1 for open a 1.2 branch On 5/17/06, Werner Punz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sean Schofield schrieb: I'm -1 on the 1.2 branch. There are major issues to be fixed in the core right now. (See TOMAHAWK-416 and related dev discussions.) I know that Stan is anxious but given the lack of interest in the core trunk, its hard to imagine we have enough support to sustain this branch. Do we have firm committments from anyone else besides Stan? +1 for a fork... the reason we need to get going asap and a fork helps. If we wait for another bunch of issues to be fixed, this will never end. Sorry to say that so harsh, but the time on 1.2 is really pressing, given that there wont be an option in jee to override the default JSF implementation via other libs in WEB-INF/lib like it was possible in JEE4 -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting]
Sean Schofield schrieb: I'm -1 on the 1.2 branch. There are major issues to be fixed in the core right now. (See TOMAHAWK-416 and related dev discussions.) I know that Stan is anxious but given the lack of interest in the core trunk, its hard to imagine we have enough support to sustain this branch. Do we have firm committments from anyone else besides Stan? +1 for a fork... the reason we need to get going asap and a fork helps. If we wait for another bunch of issues to be fixed, this will never end. Sorry to say that so harsh, but the time on 1.2 is really pressing, given that there wont be an option in jee to override the default JSF implementation via other libs in WEB-INF/lib like it was possible in JEE4
Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting]
+1 for solving tomahawk 416, being incompatible to RI is a serious issue Stan which 1.2 issues did you fix. Did you change any link renderers? If not, i am +1 for open a 1.2 branch On 5/17/06, Werner Punz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sean Schofield schrieb: I'm -1 on the 1.2 branch. There are major issues to be fixed in the core right now. (See TOMAHAWK-416 and related dev discussions.) I know that Stan is anxious but given the lack of interest in the core trunk, its hard to imagine we have enough support to sustain this branch. Do we have firm committments from anyone else besides Stan? +1 for a fork... the reason we need to get going asap and a fork helps. If we wait for another bunch of issues to be fixed, this will never end. Sorry to say that so harsh, but the time on 1.2 is really pressing, given that there wont be an option in jee to override the default JSF implementation via other libs in WEB-INF/lib like it was possible in JEE4 -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting]
By the way, we should add tons of unit tests to the 1.2 stuff as we go. There is very little unit testing in the current core which has caused us problems in the past. I suggest we make liberal use of Craig's shale mock stuff (a few of us have already added it to tomahawk and impl tests.) Sean On 5/17/06, Thomas Spiegl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1 for solving tomahawk 416, being incompatible to RI is a serious issue Stan which 1.2 issues did you fix. Did you change any link renderers? If not, i am +1 for open a 1.2 branch On 5/17/06, Werner Punz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sean Schofield schrieb: I'm -1 on the 1.2 branch. There are major issues to be fixed in the core right now. (See TOMAHAWK-416 and related dev discussions.) I know that Stan is anxious but given the lack of interest in the core trunk, its hard to imagine we have enough support to sustain this branch. Do we have firm committments from anyone else besides Stan? +1 for a fork... the reason we need to get going asap and a fork helps. If we wait for another bunch of issues to be fixed, this will never end. Sorry to say that so harsh, but the time on 1.2 is really pressing, given that there wont be an option in jee to override the default JSF implementation via other libs in WEB-INF/lib like it was possible in JEE4 -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
RE: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting]
I have implemented most of the new core API's and fixed most of the deprecated ones to be backwards compatible with 1.1 (if you look at the 1.2 javadocs you'll see what I mean). If you look at the section in the spec preface entitled What's Changed Since the Last Release you can get a feel for what I did. I've pretty much done everything in that list. Most of it is covered under this issue, which just says to implement several sections of the spec: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MYFACES-1274 I believe all of 1274 is complete except ApplicationImpl.getResourceBundle(). I needed code that reads the new faces-context.xml for that one. However, all the ELResolver stuff is done including the ResourceBundleELResolver. I've also done some of the issues listed under General Changes. For each item in that list, I created a Jira task. You can look at Jira and see which ones I did. I was just getting started on the javax.faces.webapp package when I was taken off of the project. I probably won't commit any changes from that. I didn't touch the components or renderer at all. With all the backward-compatible code I wrote, it appears that all the components still work even though they are written the 1.1 way. So, hopefully, what you guys will have to start with is a JSF 1.2 impl that is about half-way done and still works. Stan Silvert JBoss, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] callto://stansilvert -Original Message- From: Thomas Spiegl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 4:58 PM To: MyFaces Development; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting] +1 for solving tomahawk 416, being incompatible to RI is a serious issue Stan which 1.2 issues did you fix. Did you change any link renderers? If not, i am +1 for open a 1.2 branch On 5/17/06, Werner Punz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sean Schofield schrieb: I'm -1 on the 1.2 branch. There are major issues to be fixed in the core right now. (See TOMAHAWK-416 and related dev discussions.) I know that Stan is anxious but given the lack of interest in the core trunk, its hard to imagine we have enough support to sustain this branch. Do we have firm committments from anyone else besides Stan? +1 for a fork... the reason we need to get going asap and a fork helps. If we wait for another bunch of issues to be fixed, this will never end. Sorry to say that so harsh, but the time on 1.2 is really pressing, given that there wont be an option in jee to override the default JSF implementation via other libs in WEB-INF/lib like it was possible in JEE4 -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting]
I'm -1 on the 1.2 branch. There are major issues to be fixed in the core right now. (See TOMAHAWK-416 and related dev discussions.) I know that Stan is anxious but given the lack of interest in the core trunk, its hard to imagine we have enough support to sustain this branch. Do we have firm committments from anyone else besides Stan? Sean On 5/12/06, Mario Ivankovits [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi! Dennis, I don't think that a vote is necessary now. Just get the jsf 1.2 stuff up and working (EL, TCK, ...). We will do the vote as soon as we are ready to merge the new code down to the trunk. How long do we think this might take? We should be aware that we have to do bug fixing on two branches head + jsf.1.2. Merge down might no longer work then. Instead of merge down the jsf 1.2 should replace the trunk then, no? In the meantime one should be responsible to ensure that all commits to head should also go to the jsf 1.2 branch (maybe adapted if the patch is not compatible). Responsible here doesnt mean that the one should do it, but to urge the committer to do so - A supervisor. Any volunteer? Ciao, Mario
Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting]
Well, but Stan has coded a lot, so we still want to have this code in. And from the performance measurements we've done last week, I think that JBoss might have a reason to switch back to MyFaces as well, if the RI JSF1.2 implementation isn't improved a lot. regards, Martin On 5/16/06, Sean Schofield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm -1 on the 1.2 branch. There are major issues to be fixed in the core right now. (See TOMAHAWK-416 and related dev discussions.) I know that Stan is anxious but given the lack of interest in the core trunk, its hard to imagine we have enough support to sustain this branch. Do we have firm committments from anyone else besides Stan? Sean On 5/12/06, Mario Ivankovits [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi! Dennis, I don't think that a vote is necessary now. Just get the jsf 1.2 stuff up and working (EL, TCK, ...). We will do the vote as soon as we are ready to merge the new code down to the trunk. How long do we think this might take? We should be aware that we have to do bug fixing on two branches head + jsf.1.2. Merge down might no longer work then. Instead of merge down the jsf 1.2 should replace the trunk then, no? In the meantime one should be responsible to ensure that all commits to head should also go to the jsf 1.2 branch (maybe adapted if the patch is not compatible). Responsible here doesnt mean that the one should do it, but to urge the committer to do so - A supervisor. Any volunteer? Ciao, Mario -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
RE: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting
good point. I remember when I tried to replace some JARs inside a container (it worked) but our QA told me that this will cause problems @ customers`s side. They pay much money for a container and replacing JARs can cause loose of support form the vendor side. Even when the customers engineers agree to do it, management will give a thumbs down ;-) Anyway, let`s do the JSF 1.2 impl. Java EE 5 will not be part of production at big big big customers. so containers like Geronimo or OC4J (just to name two) will be able to take the MyFaces JSF 1.2 impl to their system Even though the big companies are likely to be late implementers, all AppServer-Companies have to get working NOW... It might need some marketing to convince some appserver-people to wait for MyFaces 1.2 regards Alexander
JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting]
Ok, as soon as apache svn is up again I will create a core branch called jsf_1_2 so that Stan is able to commit his work. Dennis, I don't think that a vote is necessary now. Just get the jsf 1.2 stuff up and working (EL, TCK, ...). We will do the vote as soon as we are ready to merge the new code down to the trunk. Let's hit the gas! Manfred On 5/12/06, Jesse Alexander (KSFD 121) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: good point. I remember when I tried to replace some JARs inside a container (it worked) but our QA told me that this will cause problems @ customers`s side. They pay much money for a container and replacing JARs can cause loose of support form the vendor side. Even when the customers engineers agree to do it, management will give a thumbs down ;-) Anyway, let`s do the JSF 1.2 impl. Java EE 5 will not be part of production at big big big customers. so containers like Geronimo or OC4J (just to name two) will be able to take the MyFaces JSF 1.2 impl to their system Even though the big companies are likely to be late implementers, all AppServer-Companies have to get working NOW... It might need some marketing to convince some appserver-people to wait for MyFaces 1.2 regards Alexander
Re: JSF 1.2 [was: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting]
Hi! Dennis, I don't think that a vote is necessary now. Just get the jsf 1.2 stuff up and working (EL, TCK, ...). We will do the vote as soon as we are ready to merge the new code down to the trunk. How long do we think this might take? We should be aware that we have to do bug fixing on two branches head + jsf.1.2. Merge down might no longer work then. Instead of merge down the jsf 1.2 should replace the trunk then, no? In the meantime one should be responsible to ensure that all commits to head should also go to the jsf 1.2 branch (maybe adapted if the patch is not compatible). Responsible here doesnt mean that the one should do it, but to urge the committer to do so - A supervisor. Any volunteer? Ciao, Mario
RE: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting
I don't see any reason why you couldn't do that. We have people today who remove MyFaces so they can use the RI. Stan Silvert JBoss, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] callto://stansilvert -Original Message- From: Martin Marinschek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 4:16 AM To: MyFaces Development Subject: Re: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting Stan, will it be possible to configure another JSF 1.2 implementation in JBoss, when the release is out? Meaning - will it be possible to put the RI out and MyFaces (in a 1.2 compatible version) in, if that is desired by the user? regards, Martin On 5/10/06, Werner Punz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dennis Byrne schrieb: Also, JBoss has decided to use the RI instead of MyFaces for JBoss 5. The decision was purely one of time and resources. By shipping the RI we will be able to pass the JEE 5 TCK sooner. We need to branch for 1.2 and get moving. Btw. if anyone has not noticed yet, Craig pointed out at JAX a huge political issue with JSF 1.2 As of JEE 5 the webcontainers are not allowed in their classloader hierarchy to make the jsf implementation overridable via a WEB-INF/lib jsf (as far as I understood, Craig correct me there if I am wrong). So it will become way harder to push a new jsf implementation into a webapp as soon as an application moves from a plain servlet runner towards Tomcat. Werner -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
Re: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting
that's my understanding as well. the only problem in my POV is that people might be wondering why the Myfaces-jars inside their WEB-INF/lib might be ignored (JavaEE 5). Will there be a logger-warning message ? -Matthias On 5/11/06, Stan Silvert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't see any reason why you couldn't do that. We have people today who remove MyFaces so they can use the RI. Stan Silvert JBoss, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] callto://stansilvert -Original Message- From: Martin Marinschek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 4:16 AM To: MyFaces Development Subject: Re: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting Stan, will it be possible to configure another JSF 1.2 implementation in JBoss, when the release is out? Meaning - will it be possible to put the RI out and MyFaces (in a 1.2 compatible version) in, if that is desired by the user? regards, Martin On 5/10/06, Werner Punz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dennis Byrne schrieb: Also, JBoss has decided to use the RI instead of MyFaces for JBoss 5. The decision was purely one of time and resources. By shipping the RI we will be able to pass the JEE 5 TCK sooner. We need to branch for 1.2 and get moving. Btw. if anyone has not noticed yet, Craig pointed out at JAX a huge political issue with JSF 1.2 As of JEE 5 the webcontainers are not allowed in their classloader hierarchy to make the jsf implementation overridable via a WEB-INF/lib jsf (as far as I understood, Craig correct me there if I am wrong). So it will become way harder to push a new jsf implementation into a webapp as soon as an application moves from a plain servlet runner towards Tomcat. Werner -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces -- Matthias Wessendorf Aechterhoek 18 48282 Emsdetten http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
RE: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting
It's possible, but weird things can happen. For instance, we now cache the MyFaces TLD globally. So, the standard JSF taglibs are available to all web apps regardless of classloader settings. When you try to use the RI you get conflicts because the MyFaces versions of these taglibs are called. To get the RI to work at all you have to either disable the cache or remove the MyFaces jars completely. I already created a task a few weeks ago to log an info message about this. So, at the very least users will get some helpful information about the choices they need to make. Right now they just get nasty error messages. Stan Silvert JBoss, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] callto://stansilvert -Original Message- From: Jacob Hookom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 10:16 AM To: MyFaces Development Subject: Re: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting I think it depends on the classloader... I wonder if the fact that you can specify an alternate Lifecycle on the FacesServlet mapping would allow you to hijack the implementation on a per webapp basis with JSF 1.2. Matthias Wessendorf wrote: that's my understanding as well. the only problem in my POV is that people might be wondering why the Myfaces-jars inside their WEB-INF/lib might be ignored (JavaEE 5). Will there be a logger-warning message ? -Matthias On 5/11/06, Stan Silvert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't see any reason why you couldn't do that. We have people today who remove MyFaces so they can use the RI. Stan Silvert JBoss, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] callto://stansilvert -Original Message- From: Martin Marinschek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 4:16 AM To: MyFaces Development Subject: Re: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting Stan, will it be possible to configure another JSF 1.2 implementation in JBoss, when the release is out? Meaning - will it be possible to put the RI out and MyFaces (in a 1.2 compatible version) in, if that is desired by the user? regards, Martin On 5/10/06, Werner Punz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dennis Byrne schrieb: Also, JBoss has decided to use the RI instead of MyFaces for JBoss 5. The decision was purely one of time and resources. By shipping the RI we will be able to pass the JEE 5 TCK sooner. We need to branch for 1.2 and get moving. Btw. if anyone has not noticed yet, Craig pointed out at JAX a huge political issue with JSF 1.2 As of JEE 5 the webcontainers are not allowed in their classloader hierarchy to make the jsf implementation overridable via a WEB-INF/lib jsf (as far as I understood, Craig correct me there if I am wrong). So it will become way harder to push a new jsf implementation into a webapp as soon as an application moves from a plain servlet runner towards Tomcat. Werner -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces -- -- Sent from my FrankenBerry Wireless Handheld
Re: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting
On 5/10/06, Werner Punz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dennis Byrne schrieb: Also, JBoss has decided to use the RI instead of MyFaces for JBoss 5. The decision was purely one of time and resources.By shipping the RI we will be able to pass the JEE 5 TCK sooner. We need to branch for 1.2 and get moving.Btw. if anyone has not noticed yet, Craig pointed out at JAX a hugepolitical issue with JSF 1.2As of JEE 5 the webcontainers are not allowed in their classloader hierarchy to make the jsf implementation overridable via a WEB-INF/libjsf (as far as I understood, Craig correct me there if I am wrong).More precisely, you should not be allowed to replace the container's 1.2 implementation with a 1.1 implementation ... that would be like trying to replace the Servlet 2.5 implementation built in to the container with a Servlet 2.4 or 2.3 implementation by trying to include the relevant jars of Tomcat inside your war. It is certainly technically feasible for an app server to provide a mechanism to replace the JSF implementation inside the server itself. Just keep in mind that the result of doing this is no longer guaranteed to be a Java EE 5 server that has passed the entire platform suite of TCK tests. The TCKs would have been run against the unmodified server as a unit. CraigSo it will become way harder to push a new jsf implementation into a webapp as soon as an application moves from a plain servlet runnertowards Tomcat.Werner
Re: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting
More precisely, you should not be allowed to replace the container's 1.2 implementation with a 1.1 implementation ... that would be like trying to replace the Servlet 2.5 implementation built in to the container with a Servlet 2.4 or 2.3 implementation by trying to include the relevant jars of Tomcat inside your war. It is certainly technically feasible for an app server to provide a mechanism to replace the JSF implementation inside the server itself. Just keep in mind that the result of doing this is no longer guaranteed to be a Java EE 5 server that has passed the entire platform suite of TCK tests. The TCKs would have been run against the unmodified server as a unit. good point. I remember when I tried to replace some JARs inside a container (it worked) but our QA told me that this will cause problems @ customers`s side. They pay much money for a container and replacing JARs can cause loose of support form the vendor side. Anyway, let`s do the JSF 1.2 impl. Java EE 5 will not be part of production at big big big customers. so containers like Geronimo or OC4J (just to name two) will be able to take the MyFaces JSF 1.2 impl to their system -Matthias
Re: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting
Anyway, let`s do the JSF 1.2 impl. Java EE 5 will not be part of production at big big big customers. so containers like Geronimo or OC4J (just to name two) will be able to take the MyFaces JSF 1.2 impl to their system I can't force anyone to share my opinion, but I would like to get a consensus on the goals for a 1.2 release . IMO, it is simple - pass TCK and release. Will one of the PMC members please start an official vote for this? -Matthias Dennis Byrne
Re: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting
Stan- Also, JBoss has decided to use the RI instead of MyFaces for JBoss 5. The decision was purely one of time and resources. By shipping the RI we will be able to pass the JEE 5 TCK sooner. It also means that I can be reassigned to other JSF-related projects. Which web-container you are using inside of JBoss? Is Tomcat 6 or Jetty already JEE5 compliant (and stable)? 1) I will commit the 1.2 code that I have already written. It is fairly substantial and should give MyFaces a good head start on 1.2 compliance. good -Matthias
Re: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting
Hi Stan, Hi all, This is really bad news for our community. I'm personally very sad that JBoss has decided to choose this path. Most of you probably know that relationship between JBoss and the ASF was not always free of conflicts in the past. It's also no secret that JBoss never was happy about the Apache licence - for reasons beyond my ken. You mentioned that this decision was because of time and resources. There is no reason to doubt, of course. Stan, don't get me wrong. I appreciate your contributions and thank you for your offer to commit the 1.2 stuff. Perhaps you where a little bit frustrated to get not much support from the community the last weeks. Ok, our fault. But, hey, this is Apache open source land. Many of us have day jobs not directly related to MyFaces. Many of us are currently working hard getting MyFaces 1.1.x stable. Everyone in the community is free to set his personal priorities. That's how it works. However, supporting Apache MyFaces further on would have been a strong signal from JBoss to the open source community. Too bad. Regards, Manfred On 5/9/06, Stan Silvert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have some news for everyone. The JavaOne Committers/Contributors meeting is cancelled – at least for me. I won't be attending JavaOne this year. Since nobody from JBoss will be at the MyFaces meeting, I don't think JBoss will be able to sponsor the event. If you still want the meeting to happen I will find out if the room is cancelled or not. If the room is cancelled then maybe another company can pick up the cost. It wasn't very expensive (I think around $500). Also, JBoss has decided to use the RI instead of MyFaces for JBoss 5. The decision was purely one of time and resources. By shipping the RI we will be able to pass the JEE 5 TCK sooner. It also means that I can be reassigned to other JSF-related projects. There is some good news: 1) I will commit the 1.2 code that I have already written. It is fairly substantial and should give MyFaces a good head start on 1.2 compliance. 2) Though I won't be as active as in the past few months, I'll still keep an eye on MyFaces work as time allows. 3) JBoss is upping its involvement in the JSF community. I can't say much at this point about that. You probably already know about JBoss Seam, but there is more cool JSF stuff where that came from. Best regards, Stan Silvert JBoss, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] callto://stansilvert From: Stan Silvert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 7:54 PM To: MyFaces Development Subject: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting In addition to the dinner, it sounded like there was interest in a MyFaces Committers and Contributors meeting. Please let me know if you are coming and if you are willing to lead a discussion. I got JBoss to sponsor the meeting and we now have a room booked for 20-30 people at the Hotel Palomar (across the street from the Marriott). We are booked on Wednesday, the 17th: - 20-30 people classroom style so you all will have desks - afternoon from 1pm to 5pm - 3pm break with refreshments – sodas and water. Maybe some light snacks? - LCD projector, one microphone, a screen and wireless mouse I'm open to the format, but I was thinking we could do it BOF-style with some short presentations and lots of QA. Here are some suggestions for topics: Project History and Overview (Manfred, would you be willing to do this one?) Project Infrastructure (SVN tips?, MVN tips?, How stuff is organized. Future Plans for component unification?) Tomahawk Tobago ADF The JSF Community and Ecosystem JSF Portlets (I'll do this one if folks are interested) JSF 1.2 Again, please respond if you will attend and if you can lead a discussion. Stan Silvert JBoss, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] callto://stansilvert
RE: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting
We are using Tomcat 6. We have funded most of the development of that. Stan Silvert JBoss, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] callto://stansilvert -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matthias Wessendorf Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 5:24 AM To: MyFaces Development Subject: Re: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting Stan- Also, JBoss has decided to use the RI instead of MyFaces for JBoss 5. The decision was purely one of time and resources. By shipping the RI we will be able to pass the JEE 5 TCK sooner. It also means that I can be reassigned to other JSF-related projects. Which web-container you are using inside of JBoss? Is Tomcat 6 or Jetty already JEE5 compliant (and stable)? 1) I will commit the 1.2 code that I have already written. It is fairly substantial and should give MyFaces a good head start on 1.2 compliance. good -Matthias
RE: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting
You mentioned that this decision was because of time and resources. There is no reason to doubt, of course. Stan, don't get me wrong. I appreciate your contributions and thank you for your offer to commit the 1.2 stuff. Perhaps you where a little bit frustrated to get not much support from the community the last weeks. Ok, our fault. But, hey, this is Apache open source land. Many of us have day jobs not directly related to MyFaces. No, it had nothing to do with frustration on my part. I totally understand what it's like to do open source on nights and weekends. I don't fault anyone at MyFaces. It really wasn't my decision to make. But, there was no way to make an argument that spending 60 hours a week on MyFaces was a good use of my time. I have a responsibility to do right by my employer. However, supporting Apache MyFaces further on would have been a strong signal from JBoss to the open source community. Too bad. I do differ with you there. You don't get more open source community than JBoss. We live it, breathe it, eat it, and feed our children with it. We've proven that you don't have to just do open source on nights and weekends. You can make it your day job. More developers should insist on spending their time doing what they love instead of being stuck in boring IT jobs. To that end, I will now be able to work on open source projects that expand the usefulness of JSF in general. I'm sorry if the MyFaces core impl suffers, but the overall community actually benefits. I want to reiterate - this has nothing to do with our opinion of MyFaces or Apache. The whole effort just wasn't making a lot of sense. I still think MyFaces is cool, for lots of reasons. Regards, Manfred On 5/9/06, Stan Silvert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have some news for everyone. The JavaOne Committers/Contributors meeting is cancelled - at least for me. I won't be attending JavaOne this year. Since nobody from JBoss will be at the MyFaces meeting, I don't think JBoss will be able to sponsor the event. If you still want the meeting to happen I will find out if the room is cancelled or not. If the room is cancelled then maybe another company can pick up the cost. It wasn't very expensive (I think around $500). Also, JBoss has decided to use the RI instead of MyFaces for JBoss 5. The decision was purely one of time and resources. By shipping the RI we will be able to pass the JEE 5 TCK sooner. It also means that I can be reassigned to other JSF-related projects. There is some good news: 1) I will commit the 1.2 code that I have already written. It is fairly substantial and should give MyFaces a good head start on 1.2 compliance. 2) Though I won't be as active as in the past few months, I'll still keep an eye on MyFaces work as time allows. 3) JBoss is upping its involvement in the JSF community. I can't say much at this point about that. You probably already know about JBoss Seam, but there is more cool JSF stuff where that came from. Best regards, Stan Silvert JBoss, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] callto://stansilvert From: Stan Silvert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 7:54 PM To: MyFaces Development Subject: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting In addition to the dinner, it sounded like there was interest in a MyFaces Committers and Contributors meeting. Please let me know if you are coming and if you are willing to lead a discussion. I got JBoss to sponsor the meeting and we now have a room booked for 20- 30 people at the Hotel Palomar (across the street from the Marriott). We are booked on Wednesday, the 17th: - 20-30 people classroom style so you all will have desks - afternoon from 1pm to 5pm - 3pm break with refreshments - sodas and water. Maybe some light snacks? - LCD projector, one microphone, a screen and wireless mouse I'm open to the format, but I was thinking we could do it BOF-style with some short presentations and lots of QA. Here are some suggestions for topics: Project History and Overview (Manfred, would you be willing to do this one?) Project Infrastructure (SVN tips?, MVN tips?, How stuff is organized. Future Plans for component unification?) Tomahawk Tobago ADF The JSF Community and Ecosystem JSF Portlets (I'll do this one if folks are interested) JSF 1.2 Again, please respond if you will attend and if you can lead a discussion. Stan Silvert JBoss, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] callto://stansilvert
Re: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting
Stan's cycles aside, it's probably just a case of JBoss wanting to have all of their ducks in order for their next AS release. Going with the 'stable' RI 1.2 right now is one issue they don't need to worry about in the immediate future. That's not to say that JBoss couldn't easily switch over to MyFaces 1.2 a little later based on community support. I've been reading about some of the state saving/jboss serialization integration that the myfaces devs were looking at, and it's those kinds of commitments that could quickly place MyFaces 1.2 in a preferred position for AS integration once you reach 1.2 compliance. Stan Silvert wrote: You mentioned that this decision was because of time and resources. There is no reason to doubt, of course. Stan, don't get me wrong. I appreciate your contributions and thank you for your offer to commit the 1.2 stuff. Perhaps you where a little bit frustrated to get not much support from the community the last weeks. Ok, our fault. But, hey, this is Apache open source land. Many of us have day jobs not directly related to MyFaces. No, it had nothing to do with frustration on my part. I totally understand what it's like to do open source on nights and weekends. I don't fault anyone at MyFaces. It really wasn't my decision to make. But, there was no way to make an argument that spending 60 hours a week on MyFaces was a good use of my time. I have a responsibility to do right by my employer. However, supporting Apache MyFaces further on would have been a strong signal from JBoss to the open source community. Too bad. I do differ with you there. You don't get more open source community than JBoss. We live it, breathe it, eat it, and feed our children with it. We've proven that you don't have to just do open source on nights and weekends. You can make it your day job. More developers should insist on spending their time doing what they love instead of being stuck in boring IT jobs. To that end, I will now be able to work on open source projects that expand the usefulness of JSF in general. I'm sorry if the MyFaces core impl suffers, but the overall community actually benefits. I want to reiterate - this has nothing to do with our opinion of MyFaces or Apache. The whole effort just wasn't making a lot of sense. I still think MyFaces is cool, for lots of reasons. Regards, Manfred On 5/9/06, Stan Silvert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have some news for everyone. The JavaOne Committers/Contributors meeting is cancelled - at least for me. I won't be attending JavaOne this year. Since nobody from JBoss will be at the MyFaces meeting, I don't think JBoss will be able to sponsor the event. If you still want the meeting to happen I will find out if the room is cancelled or not. If the room is cancelled then maybe another company can pick up the cost. It wasn't very expensive (I think around $500). Also, JBoss has decided to use the RI instead of MyFaces for JBoss 5. The decision was purely one of time and resources. By shipping the RI we will be able to pass the JEE 5 TCK sooner. It also means that I can be reassigned to other JSF-related projects. There is some good news: 1) I will commit the 1.2 code that I have already written. It is fairly substantial and should give MyFaces a good head start on 1.2 compliance. 2) Though I won't be as active as in the past few months, I'll still keep an eye on MyFaces work as time allows. 3) JBoss is upping its involvement in the JSF community. I can't say much at this point about that. You probably already know about JBoss Seam, but there is more cool JSF stuff where that came from. Best regards, Stan Silvert JBoss, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] callto://stansilvert From: Stan Silvert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 7:54 PM To: MyFaces Development Subject: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting In addition to the dinner, it sounded like there was interest in a MyFaces Committers and Contributors meeting. Please let me know if you are coming and if you are willing to lead a discussion. I got JBoss to sponsor the meeting and we now have a room booked for 20- 30 people at the Hotel Palomar (across the street from the Marriott). We are booked on Wednesday, the 17th: - 20-30 people classroom style so you all will have desks - afternoon from 1pm to 5pm - 3pm break with refreshments - sodas and water. Maybe some light snacks? - LCD projector, one microphone, a screen and wireless mouse I'm open to the format, but I was thinking we could do it BOF-style with some short presentations
Re: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting
Dennis Byrne schrieb: Also, JBoss has decided to use the RI instead of MyFaces for JBoss 5. The decision was purely one of time and resources. By shipping the RI we will be able to pass the JEE 5 TCK sooner. We need to branch for 1.2 and get moving. Btw. if anyone has not noticed yet, Craig pointed out at JAX a huge political issue with JSF 1.2 As of JEE 5 the webcontainers are not allowed in their classloader hierarchy to make the jsf implementation overridable via a WEB-INF/lib jsf (as far as I understood, Craig correct me there if I am wrong). So it will become way harder to push a new jsf implementation into a webapp as soon as an application moves from a plain servlet runner towards Tomcat. Werner
Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting
I have some news for everyone. The JavaOne Committers/Contributors meeting is cancelled at least for me. I wont be attending JavaOne this year. Since nobody from JBoss will be at the MyFaces meeting, I dont think JBoss will be able to sponsor the event. If you still want the meeting to happen I will find out if the room is cancelled or not. If the room is cancelled then maybe another company can pick up the cost. It wasnt very expensive (I think around $500). Also, JBoss has decided to use the RI instead of MyFaces for JBoss 5. The decision was purely one of time and resources. By shipping the RI we will be able to pass the JEE 5 TCK sooner. It also means that I can be reassigned to other JSF-related projects. There is some good news: 1) I will commit the 1.2 code that I have already written. It is fairly substantial and should give MyFaces a good head start on 1.2 compliance. 2) Though I wont be as active as in the past few months, Ill still keep an eye on MyFaces work as time allows. 3) JBoss is upping its involvement in the JSF community. I cant say much at this point about that. You probably already know about JBoss Seam, but there is more cool JSF stuff where that came from. Best regards, Stan Silvert JBoss, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] callto://stansilvert From: Stan Silvert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 7:54 PM To: MyFaces Development Subject: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting In addition to the dinner, it sounded like there was interest in a MyFaces Committers and Contributors meeting. Please let me know if you are coming and if you are willing to lead a discussion. I got JBoss to sponsor the meeting and we now have a room booked for 20-30 people at the Hotel Palomar (across the street from the Marriott). We are booked on Wednesday, the 17th: - 20-30 people classroom style so you all will have desks - afternoon from 1pm to 5pm - 3pm break with refreshments sodas and water. Maybe some light snacks? - LCD projector, one microphone, a screen and wireless mouse Im open to the format, but I was thinking we could do it BOF-style with some short presentations and lots of QA. Here are some suggestions for topics: Project History and Overview (Manfred, would you be willing to do this one?) Project Infrastructure (SVN tips?, MVN tips?, How stuff is organized. Future Plans for component unification?) Tomahawk Tobago ADF The JSF Community and Ecosystem JSF Portlets (Ill do this one if folks are interested) JSF 1.2 Again, please respond if you will attend and if you can lead a discussion. Stan Silvert JBoss, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] callto://stansilvert
Re: Cancelled: JavaOne MyFaces Committers/Contributors meeting
Also, JBoss has decided to use the RI instead of MyFaces for JBoss 5. The decision was purely one of time and resources. By shipping the RI we will be able to pass the JEE 5 TCK sooner. We need to branch for 1.2 and get moving. Dennis Byrne
