Re: MyFaces 2.0.0 (was Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?)
whatever comes next Here is my explanation for the why: This one is similar to Tomcat version numbering and I do not remember anyone complaining about having a Tomcat 5.x that is an implementaion of Servlet 2.4 and Tomcat 6.x being a Servlet 2.5 container. If there will be a release vs. spec table on the MyFaces Homepage (like the one on http://tomcat.apache.org/) nobody will ever be confused. The big advantage of having (only) the major number aligned to the spec is the degree of freedom with minor (x) and fix (y) number. It is a well known and successful pattern to have this major.minor.fix version numbering scheme. With the 1.2.x versioning on the other hand, how could we ever differentiate between a minor release (with new features and maybe slightly changed API for non-spec stuff) and a bug fix only release, if we may only count the last number up?! Remember the Tomcat jump from 5.0.x to 5.5.x when they did a complete rewriting of the core stuff? How could they ever have expressed that in version numbering if they had stolidly aligned their tomcat version to the servlet spec 2.4? And do not forget: There is not only the implementation. There are 3 component libs under the MyFaces umbrella. And IMHO it is much more important to align all the myfaces stuff (compatible to each other) within one major number (2.x) than aligning all the stuff to the spec version. For the component libs it is even more important to have that degree of freedom for counting up a minor number whenever there is an API change and let the minor number unchanged for a bug fix release. MyFaces is getting more and more important. Also for tool vendors. So there will be more and more people and stuff out there who/that relies on our APIs. We should be oblivious to this responsibility. Sorry, but this is my binding -1 veto on having 1.2.x for our next spec 1.2 implementation as long as the only reason for having 1.2.x is a cosmetic reason only to help people not being confused. Perhaps I missed something. If so, please explain to me what is a proper technical or organizational or consequential reason for having 1.2.x as version for our next major (sic!) release. Thanks, Manfred On 5/18/07, Kito D. Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1 for 1.2 -1 for 2.0 Using a 2.0 version is going to confuse people. ~~~ Kito D. Mann - Author, JavaServer Faces in Action http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info * Sign up for the JSF Central newsletter! http://oi.vresp.com/?fid=ac048d0e17 * From: Grant Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 1:16 PM To: MyFaces Development Subject: Re: MyFaces 2.0.0 (was Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?) +1 for 1.2 -1 for 2.0 On 5/18/07, Mathias Brökelmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1 for 1.2 2007/5/18, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] : So, any interest in making this to 2.0.0 ? -Matthias On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... I am +1 for Paul's suggestion: JSF 1.1 - MyFaces 1.x JSF 1.2 - MyFaces 2.x and I am +1 for JSF 2.0 (or JSF6 or whatever) - MyFaces 3.x --Manfred -- Mathias -- Grant Smith -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
RE: MyFaces 2.0.0 (was Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?)
I can see reasons for making it 2.0 (API-changes) but it is much more intuitive to us the same major/minor as the specification-release. +1 (non-binding) for JSF 1.2 == MyFaces 1.2 Alexander -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matthias Wessendorf Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 6:29 AM To: MyFaces Development Subject: MyFaces 2.0.0 (was Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?) So, any interest in making this to 2.0.0 ? -Matthias On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... I am +1 for Paul's suggestion: JSF 1.1 - MyFaces 1.x JSF 1.2 - MyFaces 2.x and I am +1 for JSF 2.0 (or JSF6 or whatever) - MyFaces 3.x --Manfred
Re: MyFaces 2.0.0 (was Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?)
? And do not forget: There is not only the implementation. There are 3 component libs under the MyFaces umbrella. And IMHO it is much more important to align all the myfaces stuff (compatible to each other) within one major number (2.x) than aligning all the stuff to the spec version. For the component libs it is even more important to have that degree of freedom for counting up a minor number whenever there is an API change and let the minor number unchanged for a bug fix release. MyFaces is getting more and more important. Also for tool vendors. So there will be more and more people and stuff out there who/that relies on our APIs. We should be oblivious to this responsibility. Sorry, but this is my binding -1 veto on having 1.2.x for our next spec 1.2 implementation as long as the only reason for having 1.2.x is a cosmetic reason only to help people not being confused. Perhaps I missed something. If so, please explain to me what is a proper technical or organizational or consequential reason for having 1.2.x as version for our next major (sic!) release. Thanks, Manfred On 5/18/07, Kito D. Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1 for 1.2 -1 for 2.0 Using a 2.0 version is going to confuse people. ~~~ Kito D. Mann - Author, JavaServer Faces in Action http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info * Sign up for the JSF Central newsletter! http://oi.vresp.com/?fid=ac048d0e17 * From: Grant Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 1:16 PM To: MyFaces Development Subject: Re: MyFaces 2.0.0 (was Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?) +1 for 1.2 -1 for 2.0 On 5/18/07, Mathias Brökelmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1 for 1.2 2007/5/18, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] : So, any interest in making this to 2.0.0 ? -Matthias On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... I am +1 for Paul's suggestion: JSF 1.1 - MyFaces 1.x JSF 1.2 - MyFaces 2.x and I am +1 for JSF 2.0 (or JSF6 or whatever) - MyFaces 3.x --Manfred -- Mathias -- Grant Smith -- 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: MyFaces 2.0.0 (was Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?)
. It is a well known and successful pattern to have this major.minor.fix version numbering scheme. With the 1.2.x versioning on the other hand, how could we ever differentiate between a minor release (with new features and maybe slightly changed API for non-spec stuff) and a bug fix only release, if we may only count the last number up?! Remember the Tomcat jump from 5.0.x to 5.5.x when they did a complete rewriting of the core stuff? How could they ever have expressed that in version numbering if they had stolidly aligned their tomcat version to the servlet spec 2.4? And do not forget: There is not only the implementation. There are 3 component libs under the MyFaces umbrella. And IMHO it is much more important to align all the myfaces stuff (compatible to each other) within one major number (2.x) than aligning all the stuff to the spec version. For the component libs it is even more important to have that degree of freedom for counting up a minor number whenever there is an API change and let the minor number unchanged for a bug fix release. MyFaces is getting more and more important. Also for tool vendors. So there will be more and more people and stuff out there who/that relies on our APIs. We should be oblivious to this responsibility. Sorry, but this is my binding -1 veto on having 1.2.x for our next spec 1.2 implementation as long as the only reason for having 1.2.x is a cosmetic reason only to help people not being confused. Perhaps I missed something. If so, please explain to me what is a proper technical or organizational or consequential reason for having 1.2.x as version for our next major (sic!) release. Thanks, Manfred On 5/18/07, Kito D. Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1 for 1.2 -1 for 2.0 Using a 2.0 version is going to confuse people. ~~~ Kito D. Mann - Author, JavaServer Faces in Action http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info * Sign up for the JSF Central newsletter! http://oi.vresp.com/?fid=ac048d0e17 * From: Grant Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 1:16 PM To: MyFaces Development Subject: Re: MyFaces 2.0.0 (was Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?) +1 for 1.2 -1 for 2.0 On 5/18/07, Mathias Brökelmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1 for 1.2 2007/5/18, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] : So, any interest in making this to 2.0.0 ? -Matthias On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... I am +1 for Paul's suggestion: JSF 1.1 - MyFaces 1.x JSF 1.2 - MyFaces 2.x and I am +1 for JSF 2.0 (or JSF6 or whatever) - MyFaces 3.x --Manfred -- Mathias -- Grant Smith -- 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: MyFaces 2.0.0 (was Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?)
Homepage (like the one on http://tomcat.apache.org/) nobody will ever be confused. The big advantage of having (only) the major number aligned to the spec is the degree of freedom with minor (x) and fix (y) number. It is a well known and successful pattern to have this major.minor.fix version numbering scheme. With the 1.2.x versioning on the other hand, how could we ever differentiate between a minor release (with new features and maybe slightly changed API for non-spec stuff) and a bug fix only release, if we may only count the last number up?! Remember the Tomcat jump from 5.0.x to 5.5.x when they did a complete rewriting of the core stuff? How could they ever have expressed that in version numbering if they had stolidly aligned their tomcat version to the servlet spec 2.4? And do not forget: There is not only the implementation. There are 3 component libs under the MyFaces umbrella. And IMHO it is much more important to align all the myfaces stuff (compatible to each other) within one major number (2.x) than aligning all the stuff to the spec version. For the component libs it is even more important to have that degree of freedom for counting up a minor number whenever there is an API change and let the minor number unchanged for a bug fix release. MyFaces is getting more and more important. Also for tool vendors. So there will be more and more people and stuff out there who/that relies on our APIs. We should be oblivious to this responsibility. Sorry, but this is my binding -1 veto on having 1.2.x for our next spec 1.2 implementation as long as the only reason for having 1.2.x is a cosmetic reason only to help people not being confused. Perhaps I missed something. If so, please explain to me what is a proper technical or organizational or consequential reason for having 1.2.x as version for our next major (sic!) release. Thanks, Manfred On 5/18/07, Kito D. Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1 for 1.2 -1 for 2.0 Using a 2.0 version is going to confuse people. ~~~ Kito D. Mann - Author, JavaServer Faces in Action http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info * Sign up for the JSF Central newsletter! http://oi.vresp.com/?fid=ac048d0e17 * From: Grant Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 1:16 PM To: MyFaces Development Subject: Re: MyFaces 2.0.0 (was Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?) +1 for 1.2 -1 for 2.0 On 5/18/07, Mathias Brökelmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1 for 1.2 2007/5/18, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] : So, any interest in making this to 2.0.0 ? -Matthias On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... I am +1 for Paul's suggestion: JSF 1.1 - MyFaces 1.x JSF 1.2 - MyFaces 2.x and I am +1 for JSF 2.0 (or JSF6 or whatever) - MyFaces 3.x --Manfred -- Mathias -- Grant Smith -- 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: MyFaces 2.0.0 (was Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?)
versioning on the other hand, how could we ever differentiate between a minor release (with new features and maybe slightly changed API for non-spec stuff) and a bug fix only release, if we may only count the last number up?! Remember the Tomcat jump from 5.0.x to 5.5.x when they did a complete rewriting of the core stuff? How could they ever have expressed that in version numbering if they had stolidly aligned their tomcat version to the servlet spec 2.4? And do not forget: There is not only the implementation. There are 3 component libs under the MyFaces umbrella. And IMHO it is much more important to align all the myfaces stuff (compatible to each other) within one major number (2.x) than aligning all the stuff to the spec version. For the component libs it is even more important to have that degree of freedom for counting up a minor number whenever there is an API change and let the minor number unchanged for a bug fix release. MyFaces is getting more and more important. Also for tool vendors. So there will be more and more people and stuff out there who/that relies on our APIs. We should be oblivious to this responsibility. Sorry, but this is my binding -1 veto on having 1.2.x for our next spec 1.2 implementation as long as the only reason for having 1.2.x is a cosmetic reason only to help people not being confused. Perhaps I missed something. If so, please explain to me what is a proper technical or organizational or consequential reason for having 1.2.x as version for our next major (sic!) release. Thanks, Manfred On 5/18/07, Kito D. Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1 for 1.2 -1 for 2.0 Using a 2.0 version is going to confuse people. ~~~ Kito D. Mann - Author, JavaServer Faces in Action http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info * Sign up for the JSF Central newsletter! http://oi.vresp.com/?fid=ac048d0e17 * From: Grant Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 1:16 PM To: MyFaces Development Subject: Re: MyFaces 2.0.0 (was Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?) +1 for 1.2 -1 for 2.0 On 5/18/07, Mathias Brökelmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1 for 1.2 2007/5/18, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] : So, any interest in making this to 2.0.0 ? -Matthias On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... I am +1 for Paul's suggestion: JSF 1.1 - MyFaces 1.x JSF 1.2 - MyFaces 2.x and I am +1 for JSF 2.0 (or JSF6 or whatever) - MyFaces 3.x --Manfred -- Mathias -- Grant Smith -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
Re: MyFaces 2.0.0 (was Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?)
will ever be confused. The big advantage of having (only) the major number aligned to the spec is the degree of freedom with minor (x) and fix (y) number. It is a well known and successful pattern to have this major.minor.fix version numbering scheme. With the 1.2.x versioning on the other hand, how could we ever differentiate between a minor release (with new features and maybe slightly changed API for non-spec stuff) and a bug fix only release, if we may only count the last number up?! Remember the Tomcat jump from 5.0.x to 5.5.x when they did a complete rewriting of the core stuff? How could they ever have expressed that in version numbering if they had stolidly aligned their tomcat version to the servlet spec 2.4? And do not forget: There is not only the implementation. There are 3 component libs under the MyFaces umbrella. And IMHO it is much more important to align all the myfaces stuff (compatible to each other) within one major number (2.x) than aligning all the stuff to the spec version. For the component libs it is even more important to have that degree of freedom for counting up a minor number whenever there is an API change and let the minor number unchanged for a bug fix release. MyFaces is getting more and more important. Also for tool vendors. So there will be more and more people and stuff out there who/that relies on our APIs. We should be oblivious to this responsibility. Sorry, but this is my binding -1 veto on having 1.2.x for our next spec 1.2 implementation as long as the only reason for having 1.2.x is a cosmetic reason only to help people not being confused. Perhaps I missed something. If so, please explain to me what is a proper technical or organizational or consequential reason for having 1.2.x as version for our next major (sic!) release. Thanks, Manfred On 5/18/07, Kito D. Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1 for 1.2 -1 for 2.0 Using a 2.0 version is going to confuse people. ~~~ Kito D. Mann - Author, JavaServer Faces in Action http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info * Sign up for the JSF Central newsletter! http://oi.vresp.com/?fid=ac048d0e17 * From: Grant Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 1:16 PM To: MyFaces Development Subject: Re: MyFaces 2.0.0 (was Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?) +1 for 1.2 -1 for 2.0 On 5/18/07, Mathias Brökelmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1 for 1.2 2007/5/18, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] : So, any interest in making this to 2.0.0 ? -Matthias On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... I am +1 for Paul's suggestion: JSF 1.1 - MyFaces 1.x JSF 1.2 - MyFaces 2.x and I am +1 for JSF 2.0 (or JSF6 or whatever) - MyFaces 3.x --Manfred -- Mathias -- Grant Smith -- 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: MyFaces 2.0.0 (was Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?)
. Vetos only apply to code changes; they do not apply to procedural issues such as software releases. http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html See also http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/200606.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] On 5/18/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi folks, Like Paul Spencer I'm also still +1 for MyFaces 1.x.y -- JSF 1.1 MyFaces 2.x.y -- JSF 1.2 MyFaces 3.x.y -- JSF 2.0 MyFaces 4.x.y -- JSF whatever comes next Here is my explanation for the why: This one is similar to Tomcat version numbering and I do not remember anyone complaining about having a Tomcat 5.x that is an implementaion of Servlet 2.4 and Tomcat 6.x being a Servlet 2.5 container. If there will be a release vs. spec table on the MyFaces Homepage (like the one on http://tomcat.apache.org/) nobody will ever be confused. The big advantage of having (only) the major number aligned to the spec is the degree of freedom with minor (x) and fix (y) number. It is a well known and successful pattern to have this major.minor.fix version numbering scheme. With the 1.2.x versioning on the other hand, how could we ever differentiate between a minor release (with new features and maybe slightly changed API for non-spec stuff) and a bug fix only release, if we may only count the last number up?! Remember the Tomcat jump from 5.0.x to 5.5.x when they did a complete rewriting of the core stuff? How could they ever have expressed that in version numbering if they had stolidly aligned their tomcat version to the servlet spec 2.4? And do not forget: There is not only the implementation. There are 3 component libs under the MyFaces umbrella. And IMHO it is much more important to align all the myfaces stuff (compatible to each other) within one major number (2.x) than aligning all the stuff to the spec version. For the component libs it is even more important to have that degree of freedom for counting up a minor number whenever there is an API change and let the minor number unchanged for a bug fix release. MyFaces is getting more and more important. Also for tool vendors. So there will be more and more people and stuff out there who/that relies on our APIs. We should be oblivious to this responsibility. Sorry, but this is my binding -1 veto on having 1.2.x for our next spec 1.2 implementation as long as the only reason for having 1.2.x is a cosmetic reason only to help people not being confused. Perhaps I missed something. If so, please explain to me what is a proper technical or organizational or consequential reason for having 1.2.x as version for our next major (sic!) release. Thanks, Manfred On 5/18/07, Kito D. Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1 for 1.2 -1 for 2.0 Using a 2.0 version is going to confuse people. ~~~ Kito D. Mann - Author, JavaServer Faces in Action http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info * Sign up for the JSF Central newsletter! http://oi.vresp.com/?fid=ac048d0e17 * From: Grant Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 1:16 PM To: MyFaces Development Subject: Re: MyFaces 2.0.0 (was Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?) +1 for 1.2 -1 for 2.0 On 5/18/07, Mathias Brökelmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1 for 1.2 2007/5/18, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] : So, any interest in making this to 2.0.0 ? -Matthias On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... I am +1 for Paul's suggestion: JSF 1.1 - MyFaces 1.x JSF 1.2 - MyFaces 2.x and I am +1 for JSF 2.0 (or JSF6 or whatever) - MyFaces 3.x --Manfred -- Mathias -- Grant Smith -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces -- http
RE: MyFaces 2.0.0 (was Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?)
Hello all, I'm a user of the MyFaces implementation of JSF and would like to give my opinion on this. It appair that there are two opinion on this issue based upon two motivations: 1) Lock the versionnumber of MyFaces to the specifications. 2) Use the common major.minor.patch-versioning-schema independant of the spec-versioning. The upside of the first option is that users immediately understand which version of JSF they can use a MyFaces release for. The downside of the first is that the MyFaces communicity 'looses' the option to use the common versioning schema. Although this might be pervented if the MyFaces-community should decide to use a combination of both by starting to use the schema: specMajor.specMinor.implMajor.implMinor.implPatch. This would give us: - MyFaces 1.1.1.1.5 for the current release. - MyFaces 1.1.2.0.0 for some major rework of the current implementation. - MyFaces 1.2.1.0.0 for the initial release of a MyFaces Implementation of the JSF 1.2 ( as currently being developed in the trunk ) - MyFaces 2.0.1.0.0 for the first implementation of the JSF 2.0 spec. Although this could become a problem with the next release which would be 1.1.2.0.0, which is 'lower' then the current 1.1.5-release. Besides using 5 digits for version might be a bit much. So I don't like the locking of the versioning numbers of MyFaces to the versioning of the JSF-spec. Although I agree with everybody whom have stated that it would be convenient if the version of MyFaces would directy give information about the version of the jsf-spec, I don't think that MUST be applied. I think that most people, who use MyFaces, are smart people ( they propably are software developers ;-) ), so they will understand that release x.y.z of myfaces does not neccessary mean that it implements exactly version x.y.z. of some specification. Of course the website/documentation should specify the implemented version of the spec in such a way, that it can easily be found. ( Like a compatibility matrix or like Tomcat, which has a table on their homepage, which version of tomcat implements each version of the spec. ) My suggestion would be to use the normal major.minor.patch-schema, resulting in: - use MyFaces 1.x.x for implementation(s) of any JSF 1.1-spec. - use MyFaces 2.x.x for implementation of the JSF 1.2-spec. - Deal with the other problems when they emerge. Possible solution if there ever comes a JSF 2.0-specification: * Rename MyFaces to YourFaces ( Change the name from 1st person to 2nd-person, just like the specification ) An consequently on release of JSF 3.0: * Rename the product to HerFaces, when it wins the vote over HisFaces. ;-) With kind regards, Marco Beelen -Original Message- From: Bruno Aranda [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: dinsdag 22 mei 2007 15:13 To: MyFaces Development Subject: Re: MyFaces 2.0.0 (was Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?) Ok, I see your points of having a more flexible versioning of myfaces-impl (as Martin says, myfaces-api is not going to change ever, a part from bug fixing). The only thing is that I think is more natural to the standard user to know which jsf is implemented by looking just at the version of the myfaces-impl, instead of having to go through documentation, and the confusion can be greater when myfaces-impl 2.0 and jsf-ri 2.0 are out there, both artifacts implementing different versions of the spec. Of course, I know that they are completely different things, but not everyone does. Development-wise I am with you that myfaces-2.0 would be more meaningful and flexible and I like it, but I think it is a matter of compromise to avoid future confusion. This is one of the issues with more controversy since a while! Bruno On 22/05/07, Paul Spencer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bruno, Regardless if the version number, I would expect the community and PMC would prevent this from occurring. Paul Spencer Bruno Aranda wrote: Hi, I can imagine a free evolution of myfaces-impl, but this would come at a cost of incompatibility with the RI. If we add new signatures and other artifacts depend on those signatures, that artifact is depending in the implementation and cannot be used with other implementations (e.g. RI). Is this really what we want? This is why I think that the impl should not grow and should be restricted to be *just* an implementation of the api. My 2 pences, Bruno On 22/05/07, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've always been of Manfred's opinion - it would be better to decouple spec version numbers from implementation version numbers, so I'm... +1 for MyFaces-Impl 2.0 if we don't do that, we force ourselves into an artifical corset in which we cannot move - we can only increment minor version numbers, and that means that almost no changes have been committed (users would expect only bug-fixes), whereas the implementation could grow in functionality significantly
Re: MyFaces 2.0.0 (was Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?)
+1 for 1.2. -1 for 2.0. I see no advantage to using major version numbers which differ from the spec. I see the disadvantage of confusion. Also, Manfred, you can have a -1 vote on this issue, but not a veto. Vetos only apply to code changes; they do not apply to procedural issues such as software releases. http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html See also http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/200606.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] On 5/18/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi folks, Like Paul Spencer I'm also still +1 for MyFaces 1.x.y -- JSF 1.1 MyFaces 2.x.y -- JSF 1.2 MyFaces 3.x.y -- JSF 2.0 MyFaces 4.x.y -- JSF whatever comes next Here is my explanation for the why: This one is similar to Tomcat version numbering and I do not remember anyone complaining about having a Tomcat 5.x that is an implementaion of Servlet 2.4 and Tomcat 6.x being a Servlet 2.5 container. If there will be a release vs. spec table on the MyFaces Homepage (like the one on http://tomcat.apache.org/) nobody will ever be confused. The big advantage of having (only) the major number aligned to the spec is the degree of freedom with minor (x) and fix (y) number. It is a well known and successful pattern to have this major.minor.fix version numbering scheme. With the 1.2.x versioning on the other hand, how could we ever differentiate between a minor release (with new features and maybe slightly changed API for non-spec stuff) and a bug fix only release, if we may only count the last number up?! Remember the Tomcat jump from 5.0.x to 5.5.x when they did a complete rewriting of the core stuff? How could they ever have expressed that in version numbering if they had stolidly aligned their tomcat version to the servlet spec 2.4? And do not forget: There is not only the implementation. There are 3 component libs under the MyFaces umbrella. And IMHO it is much more important to align all the myfaces stuff (compatible to each other) within one major number (2.x) than aligning all the stuff to the spec version. For the component libs it is even more important to have that degree of freedom for counting up a minor number whenever there is an API change and let the minor number unchanged for a bug fix release. MyFaces is getting more and more important. Also for tool vendors. So there will be more and more people and stuff out there who/that relies on our APIs. We should be oblivious to this responsibility. Sorry, but this is my binding -1 veto on having 1.2.x for our next spec 1.2 implementation as long as the only reason for having 1.2.x is a cosmetic reason only to help people not being confused. Perhaps I missed something. If so, please explain to me what is a proper technical or organizational or consequential reason for having 1.2.x as version for our next major (sic!) release. Thanks, Manfred On 5/18/07, Kito D. Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1 for 1.2 -1 for 2.0 Using a 2.0 version is going to confuse people. ~~~ Kito D. Mann - Author, JavaServer Faces in Action http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info * Sign up for the JSF Central newsletter! http://oi.vresp.com/?fid=ac048d0e17 * From: Grant Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 1:16 PM To: MyFaces Development Subject: Re: MyFaces 2.0.0 (was Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?) +1 for 1.2 -1 for 2.0 On 5/18/07, Mathias Brökelmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1 for 1.2 2007/5/18, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] : So, any interest in making this to 2.0.0 ? -Matthias On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... I am +1 for Paul's suggestion: JSF 1.1 - MyFaces 1.x JSF 1.2 - MyFaces 2.x and I am +1 for JSF 2.0 (or JSF6 or whatever) - MyFaces 3.x --Manfred -- Mathias -- Grant Smith -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
Re: MyFaces 2.0.0 (was Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?)
+1 for 1.2 -1 for 2.0 I do agree that using 2.0 may cause confusion, as unlike what happens with tomcat, there will be a future version 2.0 of the spec when myfaces 2.0 is there already. People, unaware of the versioning procedure of the myfaces project, will go and fetch this version thinking that it is the implementation of jsf 2.0. Cheers, Bruno On 21/05/07, Mike Kienenberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1 for 1.2. -1 for 2.0. I see no advantage to using major version numbers which differ from the spec. I see the disadvantage of confusion. Also, Manfred, you can have a -1 vote on this issue, but not a veto. Vetos only apply to code changes; they do not apply to procedural issues such as software releases. http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html See also http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/200606.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] On 5/18/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi folks, Like Paul Spencer I'm also still +1 for MyFaces 1.x.y -- JSF 1.1 MyFaces 2.x.y -- JSF 1.2 MyFaces 3.x.y -- JSF 2.0 MyFaces 4.x.y -- JSF whatever comes next Here is my explanation for the why: This one is similar to Tomcat version numbering and I do not remember anyone complaining about having a Tomcat 5.x that is an implementaion of Servlet 2.4 and Tomcat 6.x being a Servlet 2.5 container. If there will be a release vs. spec table on the MyFaces Homepage (like the one on http://tomcat.apache.org/) nobody will ever be confused. The big advantage of having (only) the major number aligned to the spec is the degree of freedom with minor (x) and fix (y) number. It is a well known and successful pattern to have this major.minor.fix version numbering scheme. With the 1.2.x versioning on the other hand, how could we ever differentiate between a minor release (with new features and maybe slightly changed API for non-spec stuff) and a bug fix only release, if we may only count the last number up?! Remember the Tomcat jump from 5.0.x to 5.5.x when they did a complete rewriting of the core stuff? How could they ever have expressed that in version numbering if they had stolidly aligned their tomcat version to the servlet spec 2.4? And do not forget: There is not only the implementation. There are 3 component libs under the MyFaces umbrella. And IMHO it is much more important to align all the myfaces stuff (compatible to each other) within one major number (2.x) than aligning all the stuff to the spec version. For the component libs it is even more important to have that degree of freedom for counting up a minor number whenever there is an API change and let the minor number unchanged for a bug fix release. MyFaces is getting more and more important. Also for tool vendors. So there will be more and more people and stuff out there who/that relies on our APIs. We should be oblivious to this responsibility. Sorry, but this is my binding -1 veto on having 1.2.x for our next spec 1.2 implementation as long as the only reason for having 1.2.x is a cosmetic reason only to help people not being confused. Perhaps I missed something. If so, please explain to me what is a proper technical or organizational or consequential reason for having 1.2.x as version for our next major (sic!) release. Thanks, Manfred On 5/18/07, Kito D. Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1 for 1.2 -1 for 2.0 Using a 2.0 version is going to confuse people. ~~~ Kito D. Mann - Author, JavaServer Faces in Action http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info * Sign up for the JSF Central newsletter! http://oi.vresp.com/?fid=ac048d0e17 * From: Grant Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 1:16 PM To: MyFaces Development Subject: Re: MyFaces 2.0.0 (was Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?) +1 for 1.2 -1 for 2.0 On 5/18/07, Mathias Brökelmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1 for 1.2 2007/5/18, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] : So, any interest in making this to 2.0.0 ? -Matthias On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... I am +1 for Paul's suggestion: JSF 1.1 - MyFaces 1.x JSF 1.2 - MyFaces 2.x and I am +1 for JSF 2.0 (or JSF6 or whatever) - MyFaces 3.x --Manfred -- Mathias -- Grant Smith -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
Re: MyFaces 2.0.0 (was Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?)
There will always be an impedence mismatch here because MyFaces no longer represents the Spec but also various component projects. So I see Manfred/Matze's point. This is why I have always advocated letting the Component initiatives reign alone in terms of their version order, release frequency and alignment with MyFaces and/or the Sun RI. And to think that we have the same exposure as the Tomcat community is pushing it. We are nowhere near as big as them - yet. So while they can start naming their releases after varieties of Hibiscus flowers in the future - we can't. I'm still +1 on 1.2. Cheers, Zubin. On 5/21/07, Bruno Aranda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1 for 1.2 -1 for 2.0 I do agree that using 2.0 may cause confusion, as unlike what happens with tomcat, there will be a future version 2.0 of the spec when myfaces 2.0 is there already. People, unaware of the versioning procedure of the myfaces project, will go and fetch this version thinking that it is the implementation of jsf 2.0. Cheers, Bruno On 21/05/07, Mike Kienenberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1 for 1.2. -1 for 2.0. I see no advantage to using major version numbers which differ from the spec. I see the disadvantage of confusion. Also, Manfred, you can have a -1 vote on this issue, but not a veto. Vetos only apply to code changes; they do not apply to procedural issues such as software releases. http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html See also http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/200606.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] On 5/18/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi folks, Like Paul Spencer I'm also still +1 for MyFaces 1.x.y -- JSF 1.1 MyFaces 2.x.y -- JSF 1.2 MyFaces 3.x.y -- JSF 2.0 MyFaces 4.x.y -- JSF whatever comes next Here is my explanation for the why: This one is similar to Tomcat version numbering and I do not remember anyone complaining about having a Tomcat 5.x that is an implementaion of Servlet 2.4 and Tomcat 6.x being a Servlet 2.5 container. If there will be a release vs. spec table on the MyFaces Homepage (like the one on http://tomcat.apache.org/) nobody will ever be confused. The big advantage of having (only) the major number aligned to the spec is the degree of freedom with minor (x) and fix (y) number. It is a well known and successful pattern to have this major.minor.fix version numbering scheme. With the 1.2.x versioning on the other hand, how could we ever differentiate between a minor release (with new features and maybe slightly changed API for non-spec stuff) and a bug fix only release, if we may only count the last number up?! Remember the Tomcat jump from 5.0.x to 5.5.x when they did a complete rewriting of the core stuff? How could they ever have expressed that in version numbering if they had stolidly aligned their tomcat version to the servlet spec 2.4? And do not forget: There is not only the implementation. There are 3 component libs under the MyFaces umbrella. And IMHO it is much more important to align all the myfaces stuff (compatible to each other) within one major number (2.x) than aligning all the stuff to the spec version. For the component libs it is even more important to have that degree of freedom for counting up a minor number whenever there is an API change and let the minor number unchanged for a bug fix release. MyFaces is getting more and more important. Also for tool vendors. So there will be more and more people and stuff out there who/that relies on our APIs. We should be oblivious to this responsibility. Sorry, but this is my binding -1 veto on having 1.2.x for our next spec 1.2 implementation as long as the only reason for having 1.2.x is a cosmetic reason only to help people not being confused. Perhaps I missed something. If so, please explain to me what is a proper technical or organizational or consequential reason for having 1.2.x as version for our next major (sic!) release. Thanks, Manfred On 5/18/07, Kito D. Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1 for 1.2 -1 for 2.0 Using a 2.0 version is going to confuse people. ~~~ Kito D. Mann - Author, JavaServer Faces in Action http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info * Sign up for the JSF Central newsletter! http://oi.vresp.com/?fid=ac048d0e17 * From: Grant Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 1:16 PM To: MyFaces Development Subject: Re: MyFaces 2.0.0 (was Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?) +1 for 1.2 -1 for 2.0 On 5/18/07, Mathias Brökelmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1 for 1.2 2007/5/18, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] : So, any interest in making this to 2.0.0 ? -Matthias On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED
Re: MyFaces 2.0.0 (was Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?)
or consequential reason for having 1.2.x as version for our next major (sic!) release. Thanks, Manfred On 5/18/07, Kito D. Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1 for 1.2 -1 for 2.0 Using a 2.0 version is going to confuse people. ~~~ Kito D. Mann - Author, JavaServer Faces in Action http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info * Sign up for the JSF Central newsletter! http://oi.vresp.com/?fid=ac048d0e17 * From: Grant Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 1:16 PM To: MyFaces Development Subject: Re: MyFaces 2.0.0 (was Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?) +1 for 1.2 -1 for 2.0 On 5/18/07, Mathias Brökelmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1 for 1.2 2007/5/18, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] : So, any interest in making this to 2.0.0 ? -Matthias On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... I am +1 for Paul's suggestion: JSF 1.1 - MyFaces 1.x JSF 1.2 - MyFaces 2.x and I am +1 for JSF 2.0 (or JSF6 or whatever) - MyFaces 3.x --Manfred -- Mathias -- Grant Smith -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
Re: MyFaces 2.0.0 (was Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?)
. Sorry, but this is my binding -1 veto on having 1.2.x for our next spec 1.2 implementation as long as the only reason for having 1.2.x is a cosmetic reason only to help people not being confused. Perhaps I missed something. If so, please explain to me what is a proper technical or organizational or consequential reason for having 1.2.x as version for our next major (sic!) release. Thanks, Manfred On 5/18/07, Kito D. Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1 for 1.2 -1 for 2.0 Using a 2.0 version is going to confuse people. ~~~ Kito D. Mann - Author, JavaServer Faces in Action http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info * Sign up for the JSF Central newsletter! http://oi.vresp.com/?fid=ac048d0e17 * From: Grant Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 1:16 PM To: MyFaces Development Subject: Re: MyFaces 2.0.0 (was Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?) +1 for 1.2 -1 for 2.0 On 5/18/07, Mathias Brökelmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1 for 1.2 2007/5/18, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] : So, any interest in making this to 2.0.0 ? -Matthias On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... I am +1 for Paul's suggestion: JSF 1.1 - MyFaces 1.x JSF 1.2 - MyFaces 2.x and I am +1 for JSF 2.0 (or JSF6 or whatever) - MyFaces 3.x --Manfred -- Mathias -- Grant Smith -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
Re: MyFaces 2.0.0 (was Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?)
+1 for 1.2 as well, MyFaces 2.0 for JSF 1.2 and MyFaces 3.0 for JSF 2.0sounds just strange to me. Regards, ~ Simon On 5/18/07, Cagatay Civici [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1 for 1.2. IMO, Save 2.0 for JSF2.0. It's just easier to explain to non-community members that way and keeps it aligned with the spec releases. +1
Re: MyFaces 2.0.0 (was Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?)
+1 for 1.2, based on the advantages of aligning with spec releases. Best wishes, Paul On May 18, 2007, at 12:41 AM, Zubin Wadia wrote: +1 for 1.2. IMO, Save 2.0 for JSF2.0. It's just easier to explain to non- community members that way and keeps it aligned with the spec releases. Cheers, Zubin. On 5/18/07, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, any interest in making this to 2.0.0 ? -Matthias On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... I am +1 for Paul's suggestion: JSF 1.1 - MyFaces 1.x JSF 1.2 - MyFaces 2.x and I am +1 for JSF 2.0 (or JSF6 or whatever) - MyFaces 3.x --Manfred
Re: MyFaces 2.0.0 (was Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?)
+1 for 1.2 2007/5/18, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED]: So, any interest in making this to 2.0.0 ? -Matthias On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... I am +1 for Paul's suggestion: JSF 1.1 - MyFaces 1.x JSF 1.2 - MyFaces 2.x and I am +1 for JSF 2.0 (or JSF6 or whatever) - MyFaces 3.x --Manfred -- Mathias
Re: MyFaces 2.0.0 (was Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?)
let's hope they don't call the next JSF JSF 6 (based on Java EE 6) But, that would mean, we can jump from 1.2 = 6. Not to bad! :-)) -M On 5/17/07, Simon Lessard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1 for 1.2 as well, MyFaces 2.0 for JSF 1.2 and MyFaces 3.0 for JSF 2.0 sounds just strange to me. Regards, ~ Simon On 5/18/07, Cagatay Civici [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1 for 1.2. IMO, Save 2.0 for JSF2.0. It's just easier to explain to non-community members that way and keeps it aligned with the spec releases. +1 -- Matthias Wessendorf http://tinyurl.com/fmywh further stuff: blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
Re: MyFaces 2.0.0 (was Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?)
+1 for 1.2 -1 for 2.0 On 5/18/07, Mathias Brökelmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1 for 1.2 2007/5/18, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED]: So, any interest in making this to 2.0.0 ? -Matthias On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... I am +1 for Paul's suggestion: JSF 1.1 - MyFaces 1.x JSF 1.2 - MyFaces 2.x and I am +1 for JSF 2.0 (or JSF6 or whatever) - MyFaces 3.x --Manfred -- Mathias -- Grant Smith
RE: MyFaces 2.0.0 (was Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?)
+1 for 1.2 -1 for 2.0 Using a “2.0” version is going to confuse people. ~~~ Kito D. Mann - Author, JavaServer Faces in Action http://www.JSFCentral.com http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info * Sign up for the JSF Central newsletter! http://oi.vresp.com/?fid=ac048d0e17 * From: Grant Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 1:16 PM To: MyFaces Development Subject: Re: MyFaces 2.0.0 (was Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?) +1 for 1.2 -1 for 2.0 On 5/18/07, Mathias Brökelmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1 for 1.2 2007/5/18, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] : So, any interest in making this to 2.0.0 ? -Matthias On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... I am +1 for Paul's suggestion: JSF 1.1 - MyFaces 1.x JSF 1.2 - MyFaces 2.x and I am +1 for JSF 2.0 (or JSF6 or whatever) - MyFaces 3.x --Manfred -- Mathias -- Grant Smith
Re: MyFaces 2.0.0 (was Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?)
Hi folks, Like Paul Spencer I'm also still +1 for MyFaces 1.x.y -- JSF 1.1 MyFaces 2.x.y -- JSF 1.2 MyFaces 3.x.y -- JSF 2.0 MyFaces 4.x.y -- JSF whatever comes next Here is my explanation for the why: This one is similar to Tomcat version numbering and I do not remember anyone complaining about having a Tomcat 5.x that is an implementaion of Servlet 2.4 and Tomcat 6.x being a Servlet 2.5 container. If there will be a release vs. spec table on the MyFaces Homepage (like the one on http://tomcat.apache.org/) nobody will ever be confused. The big advantage of having (only) the major number aligned to the spec is the degree of freedom with minor (x) and fix (y) number. It is a well known and successful pattern to have this major.minor.fix version numbering scheme. With the 1.2.x versioning on the other hand, how could we ever differentiate between a minor release (with new features and maybe slightly changed API for non-spec stuff) and a bug fix only release, if we may only count the last number up?! Remember the Tomcat jump from 5.0.x to 5.5.x when they did a complete rewriting of the core stuff? How could they ever have expressed that in version numbering if they had stolidly aligned their tomcat version to the servlet spec 2.4? And do not forget: There is not only the implementation. There are 3 component libs under the MyFaces umbrella. And IMHO it is much more important to align all the myfaces stuff (compatible to each other) within one major number (2.x) than aligning all the stuff to the spec version. For the component libs it is even more important to have that degree of freedom for counting up a minor number whenever there is an API change and let the minor number unchanged for a bug fix release. MyFaces is getting more and more important. Also for tool vendors. So there will be more and more people and stuff out there who/that relies on our APIs. We should be oblivious to this responsibility. Sorry, but this is my binding -1 veto on having 1.2.x for our next spec 1.2 implementation as long as the only reason for having 1.2.x is a cosmetic reason only to help people not being confused. Perhaps I missed something. If so, please explain to me what is a proper technical or organizational or consequential reason for having 1.2.x as version for our next major (sic!) release. Thanks, Manfred On 5/18/07, Kito D. Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1 for 1.2 -1 for 2.0 Using a 2.0 version is going to confuse people. ~~~ Kito D. Mann - Author, JavaServer Faces in Action http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info * Sign up for the JSF Central newsletter! http://oi.vresp.com/?fid=ac048d0e17 * From: Grant Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 1:16 PM To: MyFaces Development Subject: Re: MyFaces 2.0.0 (was Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?) +1 for 1.2 -1 for 2.0 On 5/18/07, Mathias Brökelmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1 for 1.2 2007/5/18, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] : So, any interest in making this to 2.0.0 ? -Matthias On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... I am +1 for Paul's suggestion: JSF 1.1 - MyFaces 1.x JSF 1.2 - MyFaces 2.x and I am +1 for JSF 2.0 (or JSF6 or whatever) - MyFaces 3.x --Manfred -- Mathias -- Grant Smith -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
Re: MyFaces 2.0.0 (was Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?)
thank you! On 5/18/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi folks, Like Paul Spencer I'm also still +1 for MyFaces 1.x.y -- JSF 1.1 MyFaces 2.x.y -- JSF 1.2 MyFaces 3.x.y -- JSF 2.0 MyFaces 4.x.y -- JSF whatever comes next Here is my explanation for the why: This one is similar to Tomcat version numbering and I do not remember anyone complaining about having a Tomcat 5.x that is an implementaion of Servlet 2.4 and Tomcat 6.x being a Servlet 2.5 container. If there will be a release vs. spec table on the MyFaces Homepage (like the one on http://tomcat.apache.org/) nobody will ever be confused. The big advantage of having (only) the major number aligned to the spec is the degree of freedom with minor (x) and fix (y) number. It is a well known and successful pattern to have this major.minor.fix version numbering scheme. With the 1.2.x versioning on the other hand, how could we ever differentiate between a minor release (with new features and maybe slightly changed API for non-spec stuff) and a bug fix only release, if we may only count the last number up?! Remember the Tomcat jump from 5.0.x to 5.5.x when they did a complete rewriting of the core stuff? How could they ever have expressed that in version numbering if they had stolidly aligned their tomcat version to the servlet spec 2.4? And do not forget: There is not only the implementation. There are 3 component libs under the MyFaces umbrella. And IMHO it is much more important to align all the myfaces stuff (compatible to each other) within one major number (2.x) than aligning all the stuff to the spec version. For the component libs it is even more important to have that degree of freedom for counting up a minor number whenever there is an API change and let the minor number unchanged for a bug fix release. MyFaces is getting more and more important. Also for tool vendors. So there will be more and more people and stuff out there who/that relies on our APIs. We should be oblivious to this responsibility. Sorry, but this is my binding -1 veto on having 1.2.x for our next spec 1.2 implementation as long as the only reason for having 1.2.x is a cosmetic reason only to help people not being confused. Perhaps I missed something. If so, please explain to me what is a proper technical or organizational or consequential reason for having 1.2.x as version for our next major (sic!) release. Thanks, Manfred On 5/18/07, Kito D. Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1 for 1.2 -1 for 2.0 Using a 2.0 version is going to confuse people. ~~~ Kito D. Mann - Author, JavaServer Faces in Action http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info * Sign up for the JSF Central newsletter! http://oi.vresp.com/?fid=ac048d0e17 * From: Grant Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 1:16 PM To: MyFaces Development Subject: Re: MyFaces 2.0.0 (was Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?) +1 for 1.2 -1 for 2.0 On 5/18/07, Mathias Brökelmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1 for 1.2 2007/5/18, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] : So, any interest in making this to 2.0.0 ? -Matthias On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... I am +1 for Paul's suggestion: JSF 1.1 - MyFaces 1.x JSF 1.2 - MyFaces 2.x and I am +1 for JSF 2.0 (or JSF6 or whatever) - MyFaces 3.x --Manfred -- Mathias -- Grant Smith -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces -- Matthias Wessendorf http://tinyurl.com/fmywh further stuff: blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
Re: MyFaces 2.0.0 (was Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?)
Ugh!! I still think the benefits you mentioned do not outweigh the benefit of not confusing our users :) You do make a valid point regarding compatibility, but I don't see why we can't stick with MyFaces 1.2.x and have all the component libs follow the same version numbers ? I guess I don't fully appreciate why the minor version number and the fix version number have to be separated: MyFaces 1.2.0 -- Initial JSF 1.2 compliant release. MyFaces 1.2.1 -- Bugfix release MyFaces 1.2.2 -- Some Bugs Fixed, and Included New Technology that Promotes World Peace. We'll still have the Compatibility Matrix which states which component libs are compatible, etc... On 5/18/07, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: thank you! On 5/18/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi folks, Like Paul Spencer I'm also still +1 for MyFaces 1.x.y -- JSF 1.1 MyFaces 2.x.y -- JSF 1.2 MyFaces 3.x.y -- JSF 2.0 MyFaces 4.x.y -- JSF whatever comes next Here is my explanation for the why: This one is similar to Tomcat version numbering and I do not remember anyone complaining about having a Tomcat 5.x that is an implementaion of Servlet 2.4 and Tomcat 6.x being a Servlet 2.5 container. If there will be a release vs. spec table on the MyFaces Homepage (like the one on http://tomcat.apache.org/) nobody will ever be confused. The big advantage of having (only) the major number aligned to the spec is the degree of freedom with minor (x) and fix (y) number. It is a well known and successful pattern to have this major.minor.fix version numbering scheme. With the 1.2.x versioning on the other hand, how could we ever differentiate between a minor release (with new features and maybe slightly changed API for non-spec stuff) and a bug fix only release, if we may only count the last number up?! Remember the Tomcat jump from 5.0.x to 5.5.x when they did a complete rewriting of the core stuff? How could they ever have expressed that in version numbering if they had stolidly aligned their tomcat version to the servlet spec 2.4? And do not forget: There is not only the implementation. There are 3 component libs under the MyFaces umbrella. And IMHO it is much more important to align all the myfaces stuff (compatible to each other) within one major number (2.x) than aligning all the stuff to the spec version. For the component libs it is even more important to have that degree of freedom for counting up a minor number whenever there is an API change and let the minor number unchanged for a bug fix release. MyFaces is getting more and more important. Also for tool vendors. So there will be more and more people and stuff out there who/that relies on our APIs. We should be oblivious to this responsibility. Sorry, but this is my binding -1 veto on having 1.2.x for our next spec 1.2 implementation as long as the only reason for having 1.2.x is a cosmetic reason only to help people not being confused. Perhaps I missed something. If so, please explain to me what is a proper technical or organizational or consequential reason for having 1.2.x as version for our next major (sic!) release. Thanks, Manfred On 5/18/07, Kito D. Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1 for 1.2 -1 for 2.0 Using a 2.0 version is going to confuse people. ~~~ Kito D. Mann - Author, JavaServer Faces in Action http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info * Sign up for the JSF Central newsletter! http://oi.vresp.com/?fid=ac048d0e17 * From: Grant Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 1:16 PM To: MyFaces Development Subject: Re: MyFaces 2.0.0 (was Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?) +1 for 1.2 -1 for 2.0 On 5/18/07, Mathias Brökelmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1 for 1.2 2007/5/18, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] : So, any interest in making this to 2.0.0 ? -Matthias On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... I am +1 for Paul's suggestion: JSF 1.1 - MyFaces 1.x JSF 1.2 - MyFaces 2.x and I am +1 for JSF 2.0 (or JSF6 or whatever) - MyFaces 3.x --Manfred -- Mathias -- Grant Smith -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces -- Matthias Wessendorf http://tinyurl.com/fmywh further stuff: blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com -- Grant Smith
Re: MyFaces 2.0.0 (was Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?)
I guess my $0.02 from the peanut gallery is that if myfaces 1.2 is an incremental improvement over 1.1 that doesn't have giant technology changes in its core but does happen to implement jsf 1.2 then 1.2 is a more appropriate name. If there are big core architectural changes so it fundamentally works differently than 1.1 then 2.0 (or higher :-) would be more appropriate. I have pretty limited exposure to myfaces but have the impression that 1.2 would be more in line with the extent and nature of the changes. thanks david jencks On May 18, 2007, at 3:14 PM, Grant Smith wrote: Ugh!! I still think the benefits you mentioned do not outweigh the benefit of not confusing our users :) You do make a valid point regarding compatibility, but I don't see why we can't stick with MyFaces 1.2.x and have all the component libs follow the same version numbers ? I guess I don't fully appreciate why the minor version number and the fix version number have to be separated: MyFaces 1.2.0 -- Initial JSF 1.2 compliant release. MyFaces 1.2.1 -- Bugfix release MyFaces 1.2.2 -- Some Bugs Fixed, and Included New Technology that Promotes World Peace. We'll still have the Compatibility Matrix which states which component libs are compatible, etc... On 5/18/07, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: thank you! On 5/18/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi folks, Like Paul Spencer I'm also still +1 for MyFaces 1.x.y -- JSF 1.1 MyFaces 2.x.y -- JSF 1.2 MyFaces 3.x.y -- JSF 2.0 MyFaces 4.x.y -- JSF whatever comes next Here is my explanation for the why: This one is similar to Tomcat version numbering and I do not remember anyone complaining about having a Tomcat 5.x that is an implementaion of Servlet 2.4 and Tomcat 6.x being a Servlet 2.5 container. If there will be a release vs. spec table on the MyFaces Homepage (like the one on http://tomcat.apache.org/) nobody will ever be confused. The big advantage of having (only) the major number aligned to the spec is the degree of freedom with minor (x) and fix (y) number. It is a well known and successful pattern to have this major.minor.fix version numbering scheme. With the 1.2.x versioning on the other hand, how could we ever differentiate between a minor release (with new features and maybe slightly changed API for non-spec stuff) and a bug fix only release, if we may only count the last number up?! Remember the Tomcat jump from 5.0.x to 5.5.x when they did a complete rewriting of the core stuff? How could they ever have expressed that in version numbering if they had stolidly aligned their tomcat version to the servlet spec 2.4? And do not forget: There is not only the implementation. There are 3 component libs under the MyFaces umbrella. And IMHO it is much more important to align all the myfaces stuff (compatible to each other) within one major number (2.x) than aligning all the stuff to the spec version. For the component libs it is even more important to have that degree of freedom for counting up a minor number whenever there is an API change and let the minor number unchanged for a bug fix release. MyFaces is getting more and more important. Also for tool vendors. So there will be more and more people and stuff out there who/that relies on our APIs. We should be oblivious to this responsibility. Sorry, but this is my binding -1 veto on having 1.2.x for our next spec 1.2 implementation as long as the only reason for having 1.2.x is a cosmetic reason only to help people not being confused. Perhaps I missed something. If so, please explain to me what is a proper technical or organizational or consequential reason for having 1.2.x as version for our next major (sic!) release. Thanks, Manfred On 5/18/07, Kito D. Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1 for 1.2 -1 for 2.0 Using a 2.0 version is going to confuse people. ~~~ Kito D. Mann - Author, JavaServer Faces in Action http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info * Sign up for the JSF Central newsletter! http://oi.vresp.com/?fid=ac048d0e17 * From: Grant Smith [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 1:16 PM To: MyFaces Development Subject: Re: MyFaces 2.0.0 (was Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?) +1 for 1.2 -1 for 2.0 On 5/18/07, Mathias Brökelmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1 for 1.2 2007/5/18, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] : So, any interest in making this to 2.0.0 ? -Matthias On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... I am +1 for Paul's suggestion: JSF 1.1 - MyFaces 1.x JSF 1.2 - MyFaces 2.x and I am +1 for JSF 2.0 (or JSF6 or whatever) - MyFaces 3.x --Manfred -- Mathias -- Grant Smith
MyFaces 2.0.0 (was Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?)
So, any interest in making this to 2.0.0 ? -Matthias On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... I am +1 for Paul's suggestion: JSF 1.1 - MyFaces 1.x JSF 1.2 - MyFaces 2.x and I am +1 for JSF 2.0 (or JSF6 or whatever) - MyFaces 3.x --Manfred
Re: MyFaces 2.0.0 (was Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?)
+1 for 1.2. IMO, Save 2.0 for JSF2.0. It's just easier to explain to non-community members that way and keeps it aligned with the spec releases. Cheers, Zubin. On 5/18/07, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, any interest in making this to 2.0.0 ? -Matthias On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... I am +1 for Paul's suggestion: JSF 1.1 - MyFaces 1.x JSF 1.2 - MyFaces 2.x and I am +1 for JSF 2.0 (or JSF6 or whatever) - MyFaces 3.x --Manfred
Re: MyFaces 2.0.0 (was Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?)
+1 for JSF 1.2 . It's more intuitive. Dennis Byrne On 5/17/07, Zubin Wadia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1 for 1.2. IMO, Save 2.0 for JSF2.0. It's just easier to explain to non-community members that way and keeps it aligned with the spec releases. Cheers, Zubin. On 5/18/07, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, any interest in making this to 2.0.0 ? -Matthias On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... I am +1 for Paul's suggestion: JSF 1.1 - MyFaces 1.x JSF 1.2 - MyFaces 2.x and I am +1 for JSF 2.0 (or JSF6 or whatever) - MyFaces 3.x --Manfred -- Dennis Byrne
Re: MyFaces 2.0.0 (was Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?)
I am still +1 for JSF 1.1 - MyFaces 1.x JSF 1.2 - MyFaces 2.x Paul Spencer Matthias Wessendorf wrote: So, any interest in making this to 2.0.0 ? -Matthias On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... I am +1 for Paul's suggestion: JSF 1.1 - MyFaces 1.x JSF 1.2 - MyFaces 2.x and I am +1 for JSF 2.0 (or JSF6 or whatever) - MyFaces 3.x --Manfred
Re: MyFaces 2.0.0 (was Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?)
Did you mean for that to go to the list ? :) On 5/17/07, Paul Spencer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am still +1 for JSF 1.1 - MyFaces 1.x JSF 1.2 - MyFaces 2.x Paul Spencer Matthias Wessendorf wrote: So, any interest in making this to 2.0.0 ? -Matthias On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... I am +1 for Paul's suggestion: JSF 1.1 - MyFaces 1.x JSF 1.2 - MyFaces 2.x and I am +1 for JSF 2.0 (or JSF6 or whatever) - MyFaces 3.x --Manfred -- Dennis Byrne
Re: MyFaces 2.0.0 (was Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?)
Whoops. It *was* to the list. On 5/17/07, Dennis Byrne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Did you mean for that to go to the list ? :) On 5/17/07, Paul Spencer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am still +1 for JSF 1.1 - MyFaces 1.x JSF 1.2 - MyFaces 2.x Paul Spencer Matthias Wessendorf wrote: So, any interest in making this to 2.0.0 ? -Matthias On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... I am +1 for Paul's suggestion: JSF 1.1 - MyFaces 1.x JSF 1.2 - MyFaces 2.x and I am +1 for JSF 2.0 (or JSF6 or whatever) - MyFaces 3.x --Manfred -- Dennis Byrne -- Dennis Byrne
Re: MyFaces 2.0.0 (was Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?)
+1 for 1.2. IMO, Save 2.0 for JSF2.0. It's just easier to explain to non-community members that way and keeps it aligned with the spec releases. +1
Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?
Ok folks, I will try to start the release process for tomahawk next week. Well, regarding the branch there are various possibilities: - use the already existing 1.1.4 branch from Nov. 2006 and release 1.1.4 - throw away existing 1.1.4 branch, create new branch and release 1.1.4 - (optionally) throw away existing 1.1.4 branch, create new 1.1.5 branch, skip version number 1.1.4 and release 1.1.5 If we use one of the two create new branch strategies, which revision is stable enough. Current head? Thanks, Manfred On 2/22/07, Jeff Bischoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1 on this idea. Tomahawk has settled down since the Dojo move and has been running relatively stable. Best to ensure the next release is branched sometime before any more big changes. (Tomahawk 1.1.4 RC is very good too) :) Paul Spencer wrote: We just completed a MyFaces 1.1.5 release, which resolved blockers related to Tomahawk. Can we get a Tomahawk release done before we start changing things for Fusion? Paul Spencer
Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?
Hi, +1 for throwing away 1.1.4, creating a new branch using current trunk and releasing 1.1.4. Cagatay On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok folks, I will try to start the release process for tomahawk next week. Well, regarding the branch there are various possibilities: - use the already existing 1.1.4 branch from Nov. 2006 and release 1.1.4 - throw away existing 1.1.4 branch, create new branch and release 1.1.4 - (optionally) throw away existing 1.1.4 branch, create new 1.1.5 branch, skip version number 1.1.4 and release 1.1.5 If we use one of the two create new branch strategies, which revision is stable enough. Current head? Thanks, Manfred On 2/22/07, Jeff Bischoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1 on this idea. Tomahawk has settled down since the Dojo move and has been running relatively stable. Best to ensure the next release is branched sometime before any more big changes. (Tomahawk 1.1.4 RC is very good too) :) Paul Spencer wrote: We just completed a MyFaces 1.1.5 release, which resolved blockers related to Tomahawk. Can we get a Tomahawk release done before we start changing things for Fusion? Paul Spencer
RE: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?
I agree. The old 1.1.4 RC is getting really aged now. However, it seems strange to just throw it away and follow-up 1.1.3 by 1.1.5 Regards, Erik-Berndt Van: Cagatay Civici [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Verzonden: vr 23-2-2007 9:27 Aan: MyFaces Development Onderwerp: Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans? Hi, +1 for throwing away 1.1.4, creating a new branch using current trunk and releasing 1.1.4. Cagatay On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok folks, I will try to start the release process for tomahawk next week. Well, regarding the branch there are various possibilities: - use the already existing 1.1.4 branch from Nov. 2006 and release 1.1.4 - throw away existing 1.1.4 branch, create new branch and release 1.1.4 - (optionally) throw away existing 1.1.4 branch, create new 1.1.5 branch, skip version number 1.1.4 and release 1.1.5 If we use one of the two create new branch strategies, which revision is stable enough. Current head? Thanks, Manfred On 2/22/07, Jeff Bischoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1 on this idea. Tomahawk has settled down since the Dojo move and has been running relatively stable. Best to ensure the next release is branched sometime before any more big changes. (Tomahawk 1.1.4 RC is very good too) :) Paul Spencer wrote: We just completed a MyFaces 1.1.5 release, which resolved blockers related to Tomahawk. Can we get a Tomahawk release done before we start changing things for Fusion? Paul Spencer Disclaimer: This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential and is the property of Sogeti Nederland B.V. or its Group members. It is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, or use this message or any part thereof. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this message. winmail.dat
Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?
Same as Cagatay. Current head should be stable enough! There was no big change last weeks in tomahawk. Due to using latest tom in a current app i can admit that there seem to be no new issues. Gerald On 2/23/07, Cagatay Civici [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, +1 for throwing away 1.1.4, creating a new branch using current trunk and releasing 1.1.4. Cagatay On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok folks, I will try to start the release process for tomahawk next week. Well, regarding the branch there are various possibilities: - use the already existing 1.1.4 branch from Nov. 2006 and release 1.1.4 - throw away existing 1.1.4 branch, create new branch and release 1.1.4 - (optionally) throw away existing 1.1.4 branch, create new 1.1.5 branch, skip version number 1.1.4 and release 1.1.5 If we use one of the two create new branch strategies, which revision is stable enough. Current head? Thanks, Manfred On 2/22/07, Jeff Bischoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1 on this idea. Tomahawk has settled down since the Dojo move and has been running relatively stable. Best to ensure the next release is branched sometime before any more big changes. (Tomahawk 1.1.4 RC is very good too) :) Paul Spencer wrote: We just completed a MyFaces 1.1.5 release, which resolved blockers related to Tomahawk. Can we get a Tomahawk release done before we start changing things for Fusion? Paul Spencer -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?
The new tomahawk release number is a trade-off. We must decide between - releasing tomahawk 1.1.4 which is not compatible to core 1.1.4 and therefore might confuse users - skipping tomahawk 1.1.4, stay in sync with core and have a tomahawk 1.1.5 that is 100% compatible to the current core 1.1.5 WDYT? --Manfred On 2/23/07, Scheper, Erik-Berndt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree. The old 1.1.4 RC is getting really aged now. However, it seems strange to just throw it away and follow-up 1.1.3 by 1.1.5 Regards, Erik-Berndt Van: Cagatay Civici [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Verzonden: vr 23-2-2007 9:27 Aan: MyFaces Development Onderwerp: Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans? Hi, +1 for throwing away 1.1.4, creating a new branch using current trunk and releasing 1.1.4. Cagatay On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok folks, I will try to start the release process for tomahawk next week. Well, regarding the branch there are various possibilities: - use the already existing 1.1.4 branch from Nov. 2006 and release 1.1.4 - throw away existing 1.1.4 branch, create new branch and release 1.1.4 - (optionally) throw away existing 1.1.4 branch, create new 1.1.5 branch, skip version number 1.1.4 and release 1.1.5 If we use one of the two create new branch strategies, which revision is stable enough. Current head? Thanks, Manfred On 2/22/07, Jeff Bischoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1 on this idea. Tomahawk has settled down since the Dojo move and has been running relatively stable. Best to ensure the next release is branched sometime before any more big changes. (Tomahawk 1.1.4 RC is very good too) :) Paul Spencer wrote: We just completed a MyFaces 1.1.5 release, which resolved blockers related to Tomahawk. Can we get a Tomahawk release done before we start changing things for Fusion? Paul Spencer Disclaimer: This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential and is the property of Sogeti Nederland B.V. or its Group members. It is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, or use this message or any part thereof. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this message.
Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?
both sounds bad... no idea, funny enough, that almost every tomahawk release has a high dependency on the core code :) -M On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The new tomahawk release number is a trade-off. We must decide between - releasing tomahawk 1.1.4 which is not compatible to core 1.1.4 and therefore might confuse users - skipping tomahawk 1.1.4, stay in sync with core and have a tomahawk 1.1.5 that is 100% compatible to the current core 1.1.5 WDYT? --Manfred On 2/23/07, Scheper, Erik-Berndt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree. The old 1.1.4 RC is getting really aged now. However, it seems strange to just throw it away and follow-up 1.1.3 by 1.1.5 Regards, Erik-Berndt Van: Cagatay Civici [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Verzonden: vr 23-2-2007 9:27 Aan: MyFaces Development Onderwerp: Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans? Hi, +1 for throwing away 1.1.4, creating a new branch using current trunk and releasing 1.1.4. Cagatay On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok folks, I will try to start the release process for tomahawk next week. Well, regarding the branch there are various possibilities: - use the already existing 1.1.4 branch from Nov. 2006 and release 1.1.4 - throw away existing 1.1.4 branch, create new branch and release 1.1.4 - (optionally) throw away existing 1.1.4 branch, create new 1.1.5 branch, skip version number 1.1.4 and release 1.1.5 If we use one of the two create new branch strategies, which revision is stable enough. Current head? Thanks, Manfred On 2/22/07, Jeff Bischoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1 on this idea. Tomahawk has settled down since the Dojo move and has been running relatively stable. Best to ensure the next release is branched sometime before any more big changes. (Tomahawk 1.1.4 RC is very good too) :) Paul Spencer wrote: We just completed a MyFaces 1.1.5 release, which resolved blockers related to Tomahawk. Can we get a Tomahawk release done before we start changing things for Fusion? Paul Spencer Disclaimer: This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential and is the property of Sogeti Nederland B.V. or its Group members. It is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, or use this message or any part thereof. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this message. -- Matthias Wessendorf http://tinyurl.com/fmywh further stuff: blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?
I slightly have a better feeling w/ skipping 1.1.4 but let's document this very good ;) -M On 2/23/07, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: both sounds bad... no idea, funny enough, that almost every tomahawk release has a high dependency on the core code :) -M On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The new tomahawk release number is a trade-off. We must decide between - releasing tomahawk 1.1.4 which is not compatible to core 1.1.4 and therefore might confuse users - skipping tomahawk 1.1.4, stay in sync with core and have a tomahawk 1.1.5 that is 100% compatible to the current core 1.1.5 WDYT? --Manfred On 2/23/07, Scheper, Erik-Berndt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree. The old 1.1.4 RC is getting really aged now. However, it seems strange to just throw it away and follow-up 1.1.3 by 1.1.5 Regards, Erik-Berndt Van: Cagatay Civici [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Verzonden: vr 23-2-2007 9:27 Aan: MyFaces Development Onderwerp: Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans? Hi, +1 for throwing away 1.1.4, creating a new branch using current trunk and releasing 1.1.4. Cagatay On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok folks, I will try to start the release process for tomahawk next week. Well, regarding the branch there are various possibilities: - use the already existing 1.1.4 branch from Nov. 2006 and release 1.1.4 - throw away existing 1.1.4 branch, create new branch and release 1.1.4 - (optionally) throw away existing 1.1.4 branch, create new 1.1.5 branch, skip version number 1.1.4 and release 1.1.5 If we use one of the two create new branch strategies, which revision is stable enough. Current head? Thanks, Manfred On 2/22/07, Jeff Bischoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1 on this idea. Tomahawk has settled down since the Dojo move and has been running relatively stable. Best to ensure the next release is branched sometime before any more big changes. (Tomahawk 1.1.4 RC is very good too) :) Paul Spencer wrote: We just completed a MyFaces 1.1.5 release, which resolved blockers related to Tomahawk. Can we get a Tomahawk release done before we start changing things for Fusion? Paul Spencer Disclaimer: This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential and is the property of Sogeti Nederland B.V. or its Group members. It is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, or use this message or any part thereof. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this message. -- Matthias Wessendorf http://tinyurl.com/fmywh further stuff: blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com -- Matthias Wessendorf http://tinyurl.com/fmywh further stuff: blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?
I suggest releasing from the head with a version of 1.1.5. Releasing the head as 1.1.4 to me is more confusing for the following reasons: o It is currently called 1.1..5-SNAPSHOT o Issues are linked to 1.1.5-SNAPSHOT o Mailing list post refer to 1.1.5-SNAPSHOT o 1.1.4 has already gone through, although partially, a release process. o 1.1.4.1 has already gone through, although partially, a release process. o User searching the mailing list for 1.1.5 issues will have to determine if the post is for the first or second 1.1.5 I do not have a problem with a missing 1.1.4 release, Tomcat does this all the time. The following statement is a concerning statement: 1.1.5 that is 100% compatible to the current core 1.1.5 What does it mean? Are their related Jira issues? Paul Spencer Manfred Geiler wrote: The new tomahawk release number is a trade-off. We must decide between - releasing tomahawk 1.1.4 which is not compatible to core 1.1.4 and therefore might confuse users - skipping tomahawk 1.1.4, stay in sync with core and have a tomahawk 1.1.5 that is 100% compatible to the current core 1.1.5 WDYT? --Manfred On 2/23/07, Scheper, Erik-Berndt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree. The old 1.1.4 RC is getting really aged now. However, it seems strange to just throw it away and follow-up 1.1.3 by 1.1.5 Regards, Erik-Berndt Van: Cagatay Civici [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Verzonden: vr 23-2-2007 9:27 Aan: MyFaces Development Onderwerp: Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans? Hi, +1 for throwing away 1.1.4, creating a new branch using current trunk and releasing 1.1.4. Cagatay On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok folks, I will try to start the release process for tomahawk next week. Well, regarding the branch there are various possibilities: - use the already existing 1.1.4 branch from Nov. 2006 and release 1.1.4 - throw away existing 1.1.4 branch, create new branch and release 1.1.4 - (optionally) throw away existing 1.1.4 branch, create new 1.1.5 branch, skip version number 1.1.4 and release 1.1.5 If we use one of the two create new branch strategies, which revision is stable enough. Current head? Thanks, Manfred On 2/22/07, Jeff Bischoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1 on this idea. Tomahawk has settled down since the Dojo move and has been running relatively stable. Best to ensure the next release is branched sometime before any more big changes. (Tomahawk 1.1.4 RC is very good too) :) Paul Spencer wrote: We just completed a MyFaces 1.1.5 release, which resolved blockers related to Tomahawk. Can we get a Tomahawk release done before we start changing things for Fusion? Paul Spencer Disclaimer: This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential and is the property of Sogeti Nederland B.V. or its Group members. It is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, or use this message or any part thereof. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this message.
Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?
On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The new tomahawk release number is a trade-off. We must decide between - releasing tomahawk 1.1.4 which is not compatible to core 1.1.4 and therefore might confuse users - skipping tomahawk 1.1.4, stay in sync with core and have a tomahawk 1.1.5 that is 100% compatible to the current core 1.1.5 +1 for Tomahawk 1.1.5 this time around, which will be compatible with Core 1.1.5. (There is plenty of information in the archives if anyone asks what happened to 1.1.4. As Paul points out, Tomcat skips version numbers in their public release series.) -- Wendy
Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?
+1 for release number tomahawk 1.1.5 On 2/23/07, Paul Spencer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I suggest releasing from the head with a version of 1.1.5. Releasing the head as 1.1.4 to me is more confusing for the following reasons: o It is currently called 1.1..5-SNAPSHOT o Issues are linked to 1.1.5-SNAPSHOT o Mailing list post refer to 1.1.5-SNAPSHOT o 1.1.4 has already gone through, although partially, a release process. o 1.1.4.1 has already gone through, although partially, a release process. o User searching the mailing list for 1.1.5 issues will have to determine if the post is for the first or second 1.1.5 I do not have a problem with a missing 1.1.4 release, Tomcat does this all the time. The following statement is a concerning statement: 1.1.5 that is 100% compatible to the current core 1.1.5 What does it mean? Are their related Jira issues? Paul Spencer Manfred Geiler wrote: The new tomahawk release number is a trade-off. We must decide between - releasing tomahawk 1.1.4 which is not compatible to core 1.1.4 and therefore might confuse users - skipping tomahawk 1.1.4, stay in sync with core and have a tomahawk 1.1.5 that is 100% compatible to the current core 1.1.5 WDYT? --Manfred On 2/23/07, Scheper, Erik-Berndt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree. The old 1.1.4 RC is getting really aged now. However, it seems strange to just throw it away and follow-up 1.1.3 by 1.1.5 Regards, Erik-Berndt Van: Cagatay Civici [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Verzonden: vr 23-2-2007 9:27 Aan: MyFaces Development Onderwerp: Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans? Hi, +1 for throwing away 1.1.4, creating a new branch using current trunk and releasing 1.1.4. Cagatay On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok folks, I will try to start the release process for tomahawk next week. Well, regarding the branch there are various possibilities: - use the already existing 1.1.4 branch from Nov. 2006 and release 1.1.4 - throw away existing 1.1.4 branch, create new branch and release 1.1.4 - (optionally) throw away existing 1.1.4 branch, create new 1.1.5 branch, skip version number 1.1.4 and release 1.1.5 If we use one of the two create new branch strategies, which revision is stable enough. Current head? Thanks, Manfred On 2/22/07, Jeff Bischoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1 on this idea. Tomahawk has settled down since the Dojo move and has been running relatively stable. Best to ensure the next release is branched sometime before any more big changes. (Tomahawk 1.1.4 RC is very good too) :) Paul Spencer wrote: We just completed a MyFaces 1.1.5 release, which resolved blockers related to Tomahawk. Can we get a Tomahawk release done before we start changing things for Fusion? Paul Spencer Disclaimer: This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential and is the property of Sogeti Nederland B.V. or its Group members. It is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, or use this message or any part thereof. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this message. -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?
Ok, thanks for your feedback. Branch 1.1.5 created. --Manfred On 2/23/07, Wendy Smoak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The new tomahawk release number is a trade-off. We must decide between - releasing tomahawk 1.1.4 which is not compatible to core 1.1.4 and therefore might confuse users - skipping tomahawk 1.1.4, stay in sync with core and have a tomahawk 1.1.5 that is 100% compatible to the current core 1.1.5 +1 for Tomahawk 1.1.5 this time around, which will be compatible with Core 1.1.5. (There is plenty of information in the archives if anyone asks what happened to 1.1.4. As Paul points out, Tomcat skips version numbers in their public release series.) -- Wendy
Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?
slightly too late, but 1.1.5 would have been my option as well. other option: 1.5 - and let tomahawk and impl version numbers get out of sync. regards, Martin On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok, thanks for your feedback. Branch 1.1.5 created. --Manfred On 2/23/07, Wendy Smoak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The new tomahawk release number is a trade-off. We must decide between - releasing tomahawk 1.1.4 which is not compatible to core 1.1.4 and therefore might confuse users - skipping tomahawk 1.1.4, stay in sync with core and have a tomahawk 1.1.5 that is 100% compatible to the current core 1.1.5 +1 for Tomahawk 1.1.5 this time around, which will be compatible with Core 1.1.5. (There is plenty of information in the archives if anyone asks what happened to 1.1.4. As Paul points out, Tomcat skips version numbers in their public release series.) -- Wendy -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?
that would be another very good option -M On 2/23/07, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: slightly too late, but 1.1.5 would have been my option as well. other option: 1.5 - and let tomahawk and impl version numbers get out of sync. regards, Martin On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok, thanks for your feedback. Branch 1.1.5 created. --Manfred On 2/23/07, Wendy Smoak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The new tomahawk release number is a trade-off. We must decide between - releasing tomahawk 1.1.4 which is not compatible to core 1.1.4 and therefore might confuse users - skipping tomahawk 1.1.4, stay in sync with core and have a tomahawk 1.1.5 that is 100% compatible to the current core 1.1.5 +1 for Tomahawk 1.1.5 this time around, which will be compatible with Core 1.1.5. (There is plenty of information in the archives if anyone asks what happened to 1.1.4. As Paul points out, Tomcat skips version numbers in their public release series.) -- Wendy -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces -- Matthias Wessendorf http://tinyurl.com/fmywh further stuff: blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?
Yes, good idea. So, next tomahawk release would be 1.5.0. +1 on that from my side --Manfred On 2/23/07, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: slightly too late, but 1.1.5 would have been my option as well. other option: 1.5 - and let tomahawk and impl version numbers get out of sync. regards, Martin On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok, thanks for your feedback. Branch 1.1.5 created. --Manfred On 2/23/07, Wendy Smoak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The new tomahawk release number is a trade-off. We must decide between - releasing tomahawk 1.1.4 which is not compatible to core 1.1.4 and therefore might confuse users - skipping tomahawk 1.1.4, stay in sync with core and have a tomahawk 1.1.5 that is 100% compatible to the current core 1.1.5 +1 for Tomahawk 1.1.5 this time around, which will be compatible with Core 1.1.5. (There is plenty of information in the archives if anyone asks what happened to 1.1.4. As Paul points out, Tomcat skips version numbers in their public release series.) -- Wendy -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?
If the version of Tomahawk is not tied to the version of MyFaces, then how about the NEXT version of Tomahawk be 1.6? This would allow Tomahawk, like Tobago, to be version independently of MyFaces. Paul Spencer Martin Marinschek wrote: slightly too late, but 1.1.5 would have been my option as well. other option: 1.5 - and let tomahawk and impl version numbers get out of sync. regards, Martin On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok, thanks for your feedback. Branch 1.1.5 created. --Manfred On 2/23/07, Wendy Smoak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The new tomahawk release number is a trade-off. We must decide between - releasing tomahawk 1.1.4 which is not compatible to core 1.1.4 and therefore might confuse users - skipping tomahawk 1.1.4, stay in sync with core and have a tomahawk 1.1.5 that is 100% compatible to the current core 1.1.5 +1 for Tomahawk 1.1.5 this time around, which will be compatible with Core 1.1.5. (There is plenty of information in the archives if anyone asks what happened to 1.1.4. As Paul points out, Tomcat skips version numbers in their public release series.) -- Wendy
Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?
-1 on 1.5.0. We have called it 1.1.5 for many months. Also the reasons I presented for NOT calling it 1.1.4 +1 on the next version of 1.6.0 Manfred Geiler wrote: Yes, good idea. So, next tomahawk release would be 1.5.0. +1 on that from my side --Manfred On 2/23/07, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: slightly too late, but 1.1.5 would have been my option as well. other option: 1.5 - and let tomahawk and impl version numbers get out of sync. regards, Martin On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok, thanks for your feedback. Branch 1.1.5 created. --Manfred On 2/23/07, Wendy Smoak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The new tomahawk release number is a trade-off. We must decide between - releasing tomahawk 1.1.4 which is not compatible to core 1.1.4 and therefore might confuse users - skipping tomahawk 1.1.4, stay in sync with core and have a tomahawk 1.1.5 that is 100% compatible to the current core 1.1.5 +1 for Tomahawk 1.1.5 this time around, which will be compatible with Core 1.1.5. (There is plenty of information in the archives if anyone asks what happened to 1.1.4. As Paul points out, Tomcat skips version numbers in their public release series.) -- Wendy -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?
1.5.0 or 1.6.0. One is as good as the other IMO. You mean 1.6.0 is better because it does not match the 1.1.5 of current core? I think Martin suggested 1.5.0 because it would be in the style of Tomcat 5.0.x vs Tomcat 5.5.x, right? --Manfred On 2/23/07, Paul Spencer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If the version of Tomahawk is not tied to the version of MyFaces, then how about the NEXT version of Tomahawk be 1.6? This would allow Tomahawk, like Tobago, to be version independently of MyFaces. Paul Spencer Martin Marinschek wrote: slightly too late, but 1.1.5 would have been my option as well. other option: 1.5 - and let tomahawk and impl version numbers get out of sync. regards, Martin On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok, thanks for your feedback. Branch 1.1.5 created. --Manfred On 2/23/07, Wendy Smoak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The new tomahawk release number is a trade-off. We must decide between - releasing tomahawk 1.1.4 which is not compatible to core 1.1.4 and therefore might confuse users - skipping tomahawk 1.1.4, stay in sync with core and have a tomahawk 1.1.5 that is 100% compatible to the current core 1.1.5 +1 for Tomahawk 1.1.5 this time around, which will be compatible with Core 1.1.5. (There is plenty of information in the archives if anyone asks what happened to 1.1.4. As Paul points out, Tomcat skips version numbers in their public release series.) -- Wendy
Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?
we sould do the same for core next is 1.5.0 and JSF 1.2 stuff should be changed to 2.0.0 On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1.5.0 or 1.6.0. One is as good as the other IMO. You mean 1.6.0 is better because it does not match the 1.1.5 of current core? I think Martin suggested 1.5.0 because it would be in the style of Tomcat 5.0.x vs Tomcat 5.5.x, right? --Manfred On 2/23/07, Paul Spencer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If the version of Tomahawk is not tied to the version of MyFaces, then how about the NEXT version of Tomahawk be 1.6? This would allow Tomahawk, like Tobago, to be version independently of MyFaces. Paul Spencer Martin Marinschek wrote: slightly too late, but 1.1.5 would have been my option as well. other option: 1.5 - and let tomahawk and impl version numbers get out of sync. regards, Martin On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok, thanks for your feedback. Branch 1.1.5 created. --Manfred On 2/23/07, Wendy Smoak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The new tomahawk release number is a trade-off. We must decide between - releasing tomahawk 1.1.4 which is not compatible to core 1.1.4 and therefore might confuse users - skipping tomahawk 1.1.4, stay in sync with core and have a tomahawk 1.1.5 that is 100% compatible to the current core 1.1.5 +1 for Tomahawk 1.1.5 this time around, which will be compatible with Core 1.1.5. (There is plenty of information in the archives if anyone asks what happened to 1.1.4. As Paul points out, Tomcat skips version numbers in their public release series.) -- Wendy -- Matthias Wessendorf http://tinyurl.com/fmywh further stuff: blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?
1) Release the head, currently know as 1.1.5-SNAPSHOT, as 1.1.5. 2) During the release process, the release plugin prompts for the next version number. Answer 1.6.0-SNAPSHOT to the prompt. Paul Spencer Manfred Geiler wrote: 1.5.0 or 1.6.0. One is as good as the other IMO. You mean 1.6.0 is better because it does not match the 1.1.5 of current core? I think Martin suggested 1.5.0 because it would be in the style of Tomcat 5.0.x vs Tomcat 5.5.x, right? --Manfred On 2/23/07, Paul Spencer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If the version of Tomahawk is not tied to the version of MyFaces, then how about the NEXT version of Tomahawk be 1.6? This would allow Tomahawk, like Tobago, to be version independently of MyFaces. Paul Spencer Martin Marinschek wrote: slightly too late, but 1.1.5 would have been my option as well. other option: 1.5 - and let tomahawk and impl version numbers get out of sync. regards, Martin On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok, thanks for your feedback. Branch 1.1.5 created. --Manfred On 2/23/07, Wendy Smoak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The new tomahawk release number is a trade-off. We must decide between - releasing tomahawk 1.1.4 which is not compatible to core 1.1.4 and therefore might confuse users - skipping tomahawk 1.1.4, stay in sync with core and have a tomahawk 1.1.5 that is 100% compatible to the current core 1.1.5 +1 for Tomahawk 1.1.5 this time around, which will be compatible with Core 1.1.5. (There is plenty of information in the archives if anyone asks what happened to 1.1.4. As Paul points out, Tomcat skips version numbers in their public release series.) -- Wendy
Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?
+1 On 2/23/07, Paul Spencer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1) Release the head, currently know as 1.1.5-SNAPSHOT, as 1.1.5. 2) During the release process, the release plugin prompts for the next version number. Answer 1.6.0-SNAPSHOT to the prompt. Paul Spencer Manfred Geiler wrote: 1.5.0 or 1.6.0. One is as good as the other IMO. You mean 1.6.0 is better because it does not match the 1.1.5 of current core? I think Martin suggested 1.5.0 because it would be in the style of Tomcat 5.0.x vs Tomcat 5.5.x, right? --Manfred On 2/23/07, Paul Spencer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If the version of Tomahawk is not tied to the version of MyFaces, then how about the NEXT version of Tomahawk be 1.6? This would allow Tomahawk, like Tobago, to be version independently of MyFaces. Paul Spencer Martin Marinschek wrote: slightly too late, but 1.1.5 would have been my option as well. other option: 1.5 - and let tomahawk and impl version numbers get out of sync. regards, Martin On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok, thanks for your feedback. Branch 1.1.5 created. --Manfred On 2/23/07, Wendy Smoak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The new tomahawk release number is a trade-off. We must decide between - releasing tomahawk 1.1.4 which is not compatible to core 1.1.4 and therefore might confuse users - skipping tomahawk 1.1.4, stay in sync with core and have a tomahawk 1.1.5 that is 100% compatible to the current core 1.1.5 +1 for Tomahawk 1.1.5 this time around, which will be compatible with Core 1.1.5. (There is plenty of information in the archives if anyone asks what happened to 1.1.4. As Paul points out, Tomcat skips version numbers in their public release series.) -- Wendy -- Matthias Wessendorf http://tinyurl.com/fmywh further stuff: blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?
I would suggest keeping the MyFaces core version in 1.1.x range becuse any releses are just bug fixes. New functionality can only be added when the JSR changes. At that point should the minor version change. +1 on releasing JSF 1.2 implementation as 2.0.0 Thus : JSF 1.1 - MyFaces 1.x JSF 1.2 - MyFaces 2.x Paul Spencer Matthias Wessendorf wrote: we sould do the same for core next is 1.5.0 and JSF 1.2 stuff should be changed to 2.0.0 On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1.5.0 or 1.6.0. One is as good as the other IMO. You mean 1.6.0 is better because it does not match the 1.1.5 of current core? I think Martin suggested 1.5.0 because it would be in the style of Tomcat 5.0.x vs Tomcat 5.5.x, right? --Manfred On 2/23/07, Paul Spencer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If the version of Tomahawk is not tied to the version of MyFaces, then how about the NEXT version of Tomahawk be 1.6? This would allow Tomahawk, like Tobago, to be version independently of MyFaces. Paul Spencer Martin Marinschek wrote: slightly too late, but 1.1.5 would have been my option as well. other option: 1.5 - and let tomahawk and impl version numbers get out of sync. regards, Martin On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok, thanks for your feedback. Branch 1.1.5 created. --Manfred On 2/23/07, Wendy Smoak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The new tomahawk release number is a trade-off. We must decide between - releasing tomahawk 1.1.4 which is not compatible to core 1.1.4 and therefore might confuse users - skipping tomahawk 1.1.4, stay in sync with core and have a tomahawk 1.1.5 that is 100% compatible to the current core 1.1.5 +1 for Tomahawk 1.1.5 this time around, which will be compatible with Core 1.1.5. (There is plenty of information in the archives if anyone asks what happened to 1.1.4. As Paul points out, Tomcat skips version numbers in their public release series.) -- Wendy
Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?
Hi Dennis, the problem is that you don't have any leeway to change the MyFaces-API (read: not JSF API) incompatible to what it had been before. Well, given we finally reach the point at which we have a pretty stable API between bugfix-releases. regards, Martin On 2/23/07, Dennis Byrne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: JSF 1.1 - MyFaces 1.x JSF 1.2 - MyFaces 2.x I'd rather keep the release numbers in sync with the spec numbers. 1.1 - 1.1.x, 1.2 - 1.2.x Paul Spencer Matthias Wessendorf wrote: we sould do the same for core next is 1.5.0 and JSF 1.2 stuff should be changed to 2.0.0 On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1.5.0 or 1.6.0. One is as good as the other IMO. You mean 1.6.0 is better because it does not match the 1.1.5 of current core? I think Martin suggested 1.5.0 because it would be in the style of Tomcat 5.0.x vs Tomcat 5.5.x, right? --Manfred On 2/23/07, Paul Spencer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If the version of Tomahawk is not tied to the version of MyFaces, then how about the NEXT version of Tomahawk be 1.6? This would allow Tomahawk, like Tobago, to be version independently of MyFaces. Paul Spencer Martin Marinschek wrote: slightly too late, but 1.1.5 would have been my option as well. other option: 1.5 - and let tomahawk and impl version numbers get out of sync. regards, Martin On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok, thanks for your feedback. Branch 1.1.5 created. --Manfred On 2/23/07, Wendy Smoak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The new tomahawk release number is a trade-off. We must decide between - releasing tomahawk 1.1.4 which is not compatible to core 1.1.4 and therefore might confuse users - skipping tomahawk 1.1.4, stay in sync with core and have a tomahawk 1.1.5 that is 100% compatible to the current core 1.1.5 +1 for Tomahawk 1.1.5 this time around, which will be compatible with Core 1.1.5. (There is plenty of information in the archives if anyone asks what happened to 1.1.4. As Paul points out, Tomcat skips version numbers in their public release series.) -- Wendy -- Dennis Byrne -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?
How about JSF 1.1 - MyFaces 1.1.x JSF 1.2 - MyFaces 1.2.x Tomahawk for JSF 1.1 - Tomahawk 1.x Tomahawk for JSF 1.2 - Tomahawk 2.x sub project for JSF 1.1 - sub project 1.x sub project for JSF 1.2 - sub project 2.x Paul Spencer Dennis Byrne wrote: JSF 1.1 - MyFaces 1.x JSF 1.2 - MyFaces 2.x I'd rather keep the release numbers in sync with the spec numbers. 1.1 - 1.1.x, 1.2 - 1.2.x Paul Spencer Matthias Wessendorf wrote: we sould do the same for core next is 1.5.0 and JSF 1.2 stuff should be changed to 2.0.0 On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1.5.0 or 1.6.0. One is as good as the other IMO. You mean 1.6.0 is better because it does not match the 1.1.5 of current core? I think Martin suggested 1.5.0 because it would be in the style of Tomcat 5.0.x vs Tomcat 5.5.x, right? --Manfred On 2/23/07, Paul Spencer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If the version of Tomahawk is not tied to the version of MyFaces, then how about the NEXT version of Tomahawk be 1.6? This would allow Tomahawk, like Tobago, to be version independently of MyFaces. Paul Spencer Martin Marinschek wrote: slightly too late, but 1.1.5 would have been my option as well. other option: 1.5 - and let tomahawk and impl version numbers get out of sync. regards, Martin On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok, thanks for your feedback. Branch 1.1.5 created. --Manfred On 2/23/07, Wendy Smoak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The new tomahawk release number is a trade-off. We must decide between - releasing tomahawk 1.1.4 which is not compatible to core 1.1.4 and therefore might confuse users - skipping tomahawk 1.1.4, stay in sync with core and have a tomahawk 1.1.5 that is 100% compatible to the current core 1.1.5 +1 for Tomahawk 1.1.5 this time around, which will be compatible with Core 1.1.5. (There is plenty of information in the archives if anyone asks what happened to 1.1.4. As Paul points out, Tomcat skips version numbers in their public release series.) -- Wendy No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.18.3/698 - Release Date: 2/23/2007 4:39 AM
Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?
there was a wiki page which says that they want to have the next version of jsf (2.0) named 6.0 so... I am not really seeing any reason to go from myfaces 1.2 to a 6 ... :-) On 2/23/07, Dennis Byrne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: JSF 1.1 - MyFaces 1.x JSF 1.2 - MyFaces 2.x I'd rather keep the release numbers in sync with the spec numbers. 1.1 - 1.1.x, 1.2 - 1.2.x Paul Spencer Matthias Wessendorf wrote: we sould do the same for core next is 1.5.0 and JSF 1.2 stuff should be changed to 2.0.0 On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1.5.0 or 1.6.0. One is as good as the other IMO. You mean 1.6.0 is better because it does not match the 1.1.5 of current core? I think Martin suggested 1.5.0 because it would be in the style of Tomcat 5.0.x vs Tomcat 5.5.x, right? --Manfred On 2/23/07, Paul Spencer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If the version of Tomahawk is not tied to the version of MyFaces, then how about the NEXT version of Tomahawk be 1.6? This would allow Tomahawk, like Tobago, to be version independently of MyFaces. Paul Spencer Martin Marinschek wrote: slightly too late, but 1.1.5 would have been my option as well. other option: 1.5 - and let tomahawk and impl version numbers get out of sync. regards, Martin On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok, thanks for your feedback. Branch 1.1.5 created. --Manfred On 2/23/07, Wendy Smoak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The new tomahawk release number is a trade-off. We must decide between - releasing tomahawk 1.1.4 which is not compatible to core 1.1.4 and therefore might confuse users - skipping tomahawk 1.1.4, stay in sync with core and have a tomahawk 1.1.5 that is 100% compatible to the current core 1.1.5 +1 for Tomahawk 1.1.5 this time around, which will be compatible with Core 1.1.5. (There is plenty of information in the archives if anyone asks what happened to 1.1.4. As Paul points out, Tomcat skips version numbers in their public release series.) -- Wendy -- Dennis Byrne -- Matthias Wessendorf http://tinyurl.com/fmywh further stuff: blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?
6.0? Seriously? Dennis Byrne On 2/23/07, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: there was a wiki page which says that they want to have the next version of jsf (2.0) named 6.0 so... I am not really seeing any reason to go from myfaces 1.2 to a 6 ... :-) On 2/23/07, Dennis Byrne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: JSF 1.1 - MyFaces 1.x JSF 1.2 - MyFaces 2.x I'd rather keep the release numbers in sync with the spec numbers. 1.1 - 1.1.x, 1.2 - 1.2.x Paul Spencer Matthias Wessendorf wrote: we sould do the same for core next is 1.5.0 and JSF 1.2 stuff should be changed to 2.0.0 On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1.5.0 or 1.6.0. One is as good as the other IMO. You mean 1.6.0 is better because it does not match the 1.1.5 of current core? I think Martin suggested 1.5.0 because it would be in the style of Tomcat 5.0.x vs Tomcat 5.5.x, right? --Manfred On 2/23/07, Paul Spencer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If the version of Tomahawk is not tied to the version of MyFaces, then how about the NEXT version of Tomahawk be 1.6? This would allow Tomahawk, like Tobago, to be version independently of MyFaces. Paul Spencer Martin Marinschek wrote: slightly too late, but 1.1.5 would have been my option as well. other option: 1.5 - and let tomahawk and impl version numbers get out of sync. regards, Martin On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok, thanks for your feedback. Branch 1.1.5 created. --Manfred On 2/23/07, Wendy Smoak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The new tomahawk release number is a trade-off. We must decide between - releasing tomahawk 1.1.4 which is not compatible to core 1.1.4 and therefore might confuse users - skipping tomahawk 1.1.4, stay in sync with core and have a tomahawk 1.1.5 that is 100% compatible to the current core 1.1.5 +1 for Tomahawk 1.1.5 this time around, which will be compatible with Core 1.1.5. (There is plenty of information in the archives if anyone asks what happened to 1.1.4. As Paul points out, Tomcat skips version numbers in their public release series.) -- Wendy -- Dennis Byrne -- Matthias Wessendorf http://tinyurl.com/fmywh further stuff: blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com -- Dennis Byrne
Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?
+1 on Dennis' suggestion (JSF 1.1 - MyFaces 1.x, JSF 1.2 - MyFaces 2.x) dennis said: 1.1 - 1.1.x, 1.2 - 1.2.x I think 1.1 - 1.x.y 1.2 - 2.x.y is the better one... --Manfred On 2/23/07, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Dennis, the problem is that you don't have any leeway to change the MyFaces-API (read: not JSF API) incompatible to what it had been before. Well, given we finally reach the point at which we have a pretty stable API between bugfix-releases. regards, Martin On 2/23/07, Dennis Byrne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: JSF 1.1 - MyFaces 1.x JSF 1.2 - MyFaces 2.x I'd rather keep the release numbers in sync with the spec numbers. 1.1 - 1.1.x, 1.2 - 1.2.x Paul Spencer Matthias Wessendorf wrote: we sould do the same for core next is 1.5.0 and JSF 1.2 stuff should be changed to 2.0.0 On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1.5.0 or 1.6.0. One is as good as the other IMO. You mean 1.6.0 is better because it does not match the 1.1.5 of current core? I think Martin suggested 1.5.0 because it would be in the style of Tomcat 5.0.x vs Tomcat 5.5.x, right? --Manfred On 2/23/07, Paul Spencer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If the version of Tomahawk is not tied to the version of MyFaces, then how about the NEXT version of Tomahawk be 1.6? This would allow Tomahawk, like Tobago, to be version independently of MyFaces. Paul Spencer Martin Marinschek wrote: slightly too late, but 1.1.5 would have been my option as well. other option: 1.5 - and let tomahawk and impl version numbers get out of sync. regards, Martin On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok, thanks for your feedback. Branch 1.1.5 created. --Manfred On 2/23/07, Wendy Smoak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The new tomahawk release number is a trade-off. We must decide between - releasing tomahawk 1.1.4 which is not compatible to core 1.1.4 and therefore might confuse users - skipping tomahawk 1.1.4, stay in sync with core and have a tomahawk 1.1.5 that is 100% compatible to the current core 1.1.5 +1 for Tomahawk 1.1.5 this time around, which will be compatible with Core 1.1.5. (There is plenty of information in the archives if anyone asks what happened to 1.1.4. As Paul points out, Tomcat skips version numbers in their public release series.) -- Wendy -- Dennis Byrne -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces -- Matthias Wessendorf http://tinyurl.com/fmywh further stuff: blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?
Dennis was suggesting JSF 1.1 -- MyFaces 1.1 JSF 1.2 -- MyFaces 1.2 I'm against that - Manfred, your suggestion sounds good. @MyFaces-API: well, Trinidad regards all Trinidad-component classes as a Trinidad-API. We were once discussing on having something like that for MyFaces as well. For Trinidad, a renderer is not in the Trinidad-API, a component is regards, Martin On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, in reallife there should not be (better: must not be) such a thing like a MyFaces-API that differs from the JSF-API, but: Every JSF-Implementation is free to implement certain add-on features or optimizations. These are the things you normally configure with those web.xml config-params. So, what you actually mean when you say MyFaces-API are those features, right? I agree that we need the option to differ between such a feature addition/remove (minor change) and a bug fix release. Therefore +1 on Dennis' suggestion (JSF 1.1 - MyFaces 1.x, JSF 1.2 - MyFaces 2.x) --Manfred On 2/23/07, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Dennis, the problem is that you don't have any leeway to change the MyFaces-API (read: not JSF API) incompatible to what it had been before. Well, given we finally reach the point at which we have a pretty stable API between bugfix-releases. regards, Martin On 2/23/07, Dennis Byrne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: JSF 1.1 - MyFaces 1.x JSF 1.2 - MyFaces 2.x I'd rather keep the release numbers in sync with the spec numbers. 1.1 - 1.1.x, 1.2 - 1.2.x Paul Spencer Matthias Wessendorf wrote: we sould do the same for core next is 1.5.0 and JSF 1.2 stuff should be changed to 2.0.0 On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1.5.0 or 1.6.0. One is as good as the other IMO. You mean 1.6.0 is better because it does not match the 1.1.5 of current core? I think Martin suggested 1.5.0 because it would be in the style of Tomcat 5.0.x vs Tomcat 5.5.x, right? --Manfred On 2/23/07, Paul Spencer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If the version of Tomahawk is not tied to the version of MyFaces, then how about the NEXT version of Tomahawk be 1.6? This would allow Tomahawk, like Tobago, to be version independently of MyFaces. Paul Spencer Martin Marinschek wrote: slightly too late, but 1.1.5 would have been my option as well. other option: 1.5 - and let tomahawk and impl version numbers get out of sync. regards, Martin On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok, thanks for your feedback. Branch 1.1.5 created. --Manfred On 2/23/07, Wendy Smoak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The new tomahawk release number is a trade-off. We must decide between - releasing tomahawk 1.1.4 which is not compatible to core 1.1.4 and therefore might confuse users - skipping tomahawk 1.1.4, stay in sync with core and have a tomahawk 1.1.5 that is 100% compatible to the current core 1.1.5 +1 for Tomahawk 1.1.5 this time around, which will be compatible with Core 1.1.5. (There is plenty of information in the archives if anyone asks what happened to 1.1.4. As Paul points out, Tomcat skips version numbers in their public release series.) -- Wendy -- Dennis Byrne -- 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: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?
It wasn't the beer _we_ were drinking - that must have been the Sun officials' beer. ;) regards, Martin On 2/23/07, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1 on Dennis' suggestion (JSF 1.1 - MyFaces 1.x, JSF 1.2 - MyFaces 2.x) dennis said: 1.1 - 1.1.x, 1.2 - 1.2.x I think 1.1 - 1.x.y 1.2 - 2.x.y is the better one... --Manfred On 2/23/07, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Dennis, the problem is that you don't have any leeway to change the MyFaces-API (read: not JSF API) incompatible to what it had been before. Well, given we finally reach the point at which we have a pretty stable API between bugfix-releases. regards, Martin On 2/23/07, Dennis Byrne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: JSF 1.1 - MyFaces 1.x JSF 1.2 - MyFaces 2.x I'd rather keep the release numbers in sync with the spec numbers. 1.1 - 1.1.x, 1.2 - 1.2.x Paul Spencer Matthias Wessendorf wrote: we sould do the same for core next is 1.5.0 and JSF 1.2 stuff should be changed to 2.0.0 On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1.5.0 or 1.6.0. One is as good as the other IMO. You mean 1.6.0 is better because it does not match the 1.1.5 of current core? I think Martin suggested 1.5.0 because it would be in the style of Tomcat 5.0.x vs Tomcat 5.5.x, right? --Manfred On 2/23/07, Paul Spencer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If the version of Tomahawk is not tied to the version of MyFaces, then how about the NEXT version of Tomahawk be 1.6? This would allow Tomahawk, like Tobago, to be version independently of MyFaces. Paul Spencer Martin Marinschek wrote: slightly too late, but 1.1.5 would have been my option as well. other option: 1.5 - and let tomahawk and impl version numbers get out of sync. regards, Martin On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok, thanks for your feedback. Branch 1.1.5 created. --Manfred On 2/23/07, Wendy Smoak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The new tomahawk release number is a trade-off. We must decide between - releasing tomahawk 1.1.4 which is not compatible to core 1.1.4 and therefore might confuse users - skipping tomahawk 1.1.4, stay in sync with core and have a tomahawk 1.1.5 that is 100% compatible to the current core 1.1.5 +1 for Tomahawk 1.1.5 this time around, which will be compatible with Core 1.1.5. (There is plenty of information in the archives if anyone asks what happened to 1.1.4. As Paul points out, Tomcat skips version numbers in their public release series.) -- Wendy -- Dennis Byrne -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces -- Matthias Wessendorf http://tinyurl.com/fmywh further stuff: blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf mail: 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: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?
8-) On 2/23/07, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It wasn't the beer _we_ were drinking - that must have been the Sun officials' beer. ;) regards, Martin On 2/23/07, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1 on Dennis' suggestion (JSF 1.1 - MyFaces 1.x, JSF 1.2 - MyFaces 2.x) dennis said: 1.1 - 1.1.x, 1.2 - 1.2.x I think 1.1 - 1.x.y 1.2 - 2.x.y is the better one... --Manfred On 2/23/07, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Dennis, the problem is that you don't have any leeway to change the MyFaces-API (read: not JSF API) incompatible to what it had been before. Well, given we finally reach the point at which we have a pretty stable API between bugfix-releases. regards, Martin On 2/23/07, Dennis Byrne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: JSF 1.1 - MyFaces 1.x JSF 1.2 - MyFaces 2.x I'd rather keep the release numbers in sync with the spec numbers. 1.1 - 1.1.x, 1.2 - 1.2.x Paul Spencer Matthias Wessendorf wrote: we sould do the same for core next is 1.5.0 and JSF 1.2 stuff should be changed to 2.0.0 On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1.5.0 or 1.6.0. One is as good as the other IMO. You mean 1.6.0 is better because it does not match the 1.1.5 of current core? I think Martin suggested 1.5.0 because it would be in the style of Tomcat 5.0.x vs Tomcat 5.5.x, right? --Manfred On 2/23/07, Paul Spencer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If the version of Tomahawk is not tied to the version of MyFaces, then how about the NEXT version of Tomahawk be 1.6? This would allow Tomahawk, like Tobago, to be version independently of MyFaces. Paul Spencer Martin Marinschek wrote: slightly too late, but 1.1.5 would have been my option as well. other option: 1.5 - and let tomahawk and impl version numbers get out of sync. regards, Martin On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok, thanks for your feedback. Branch 1.1.5 created. --Manfred On 2/23/07, Wendy Smoak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The new tomahawk release number is a trade-off. We must decide between - releasing tomahawk 1.1.4 which is not compatible to core 1.1.4 and therefore might confuse users - skipping tomahawk 1.1.4, stay in sync with core and have a tomahawk 1.1.5 that is 100% compatible to the current core 1.1.5 +1 for Tomahawk 1.1.5 this time around, which will be compatible with Core 1.1.5. (There is plenty of information in the archives if anyone asks what happened to 1.1.4. As Paul points out, Tomcat skips version numbers in their public release series.) -- Wendy -- Dennis Byrne -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces -- Matthias Wessendorf http://tinyurl.com/fmywh further stuff: blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf mail: 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 -- Matthias Wessendorf http://tinyurl.com/fmywh further stuff: blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?
@MyFaces-API: well, Trinidad regards all Trinidad-component classes as a Trinidad-API. We were once discussing on having something like that for MyFaces as well. For Trinidad, a renderer is not in the Trinidad-API, a component is that can change... I think stuff like CoreRenderer or XhtmlRenderer perhaps should be API (just to give an example) -M
Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?
I saw that post at the time, but figured it was the result of too much doppelbock and wienerschnitzel. ;) Matthias Wessendorf wrote: Well... there was a meeting in munich, during the october fest... and they discussed that... http://wiki.java.net/bin/view/Projects/JSFDaysMunich2006 *snip* Version synchronization. JSF 2.0 renamed JSF 6 to go with Java EE 6. perhaps it was the beer ;))) On 2/23/07, Dennis Byrne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 6.0? Seriously? Dennis Byrne On 2/23/07, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: there was a wiki page which says that they want to have the next version of jsf (2.0) named 6.0 so... I am not really seeing any reason to go from myfaces 1.2 to a 6 ... :-) On 2/23/07, Dennis Byrne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: JSF 1.1 - MyFaces 1.x JSF 1.2 - MyFaces 2.x I'd rather keep the release numbers in sync with the spec numbers. 1.1 - 1.1.x, 1.2 - 1.2.x Paul Spencer Matthias Wessendorf wrote: we sould do the same for core next is 1.5.0 and JSF 1.2 stuff should be changed to 2.0.0 On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1.5.0 or 1.6.0. One is as good as the other IMO. You mean 1.6.0 is better because it does not match the 1.1.5 of current core? I think Martin suggested 1.5.0 because it would be in the style of Tomcat 5.0.x vs Tomcat 5.5.x, right? --Manfred On 2/23/07, Paul Spencer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If the version of Tomahawk is not tied to the version of MyFaces, then how about the NEXT version of Tomahawk be 1.6? This would allow Tomahawk, like Tobago, to be version independently of MyFaces. Paul Spencer Martin Marinschek wrote: slightly too late, but 1.1.5 would have been my option as well. other option: 1.5 - and let tomahawk and impl version numbers get out of sync. regards, Martin On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok, thanks for your feedback. Branch 1.1.5 created. --Manfred On 2/23/07, Wendy Smoak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The new tomahawk release number is a trade-off. We must decide between - releasing tomahawk 1.1.4 which is not compatible to core 1.1.4 and therefore might confuse users - skipping tomahawk 1.1.4, stay in sync with core and have a tomahawk 1.1.5 that is 100% compatible to the current core 1.1.5 +1 for Tomahawk 1.1.5 this time around, which will be compatible with Core 1.1.5. (There is plenty of information in the archives if anyone asks what happened to 1.1.4. As Paul points out, Tomcat skips version numbers in their public release series.) -- Wendy -- Dennis Byrne -- Matthias Wessendorf http://tinyurl.com/fmywh further stuff: blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com -- Dennis Byrne
Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?
That would indeed be a very good change. Creating your own renderer for Trinidad is quite hard currently... regards, Martin On 2/23/07, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: @MyFaces-API: well, Trinidad regards all Trinidad-component classes as a Trinidad-API. We were once discussing on having something like that for MyFaces as well. For Trinidad, a renderer is not in the Trinidad-API, a component is that can change... I think stuff like CoreRenderer or XhtmlRenderer perhaps should be API (just to give an example) -M -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?
It's Weisswurst we ate! and a lot of that stuff. regards, Martin On 2/23/07, Jeff Bischoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I saw that post at the time, but figured it was the result of too much doppelbock and wienerschnitzel. ;) Matthias Wessendorf wrote: Well... there was a meeting in munich, during the october fest... and they discussed that... http://wiki.java.net/bin/view/Projects/JSFDaysMunich2006 *snip* Version synchronization. JSF 2.0 renamed JSF 6 to go with Java EE 6. perhaps it was the beer ;))) On 2/23/07, Dennis Byrne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 6.0? Seriously? Dennis Byrne On 2/23/07, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: there was a wiki page which says that they want to have the next version of jsf (2.0) named 6.0 so... I am not really seeing any reason to go from myfaces 1.2 to a 6 ... :-) On 2/23/07, Dennis Byrne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: JSF 1.1 - MyFaces 1.x JSF 1.2 - MyFaces 2.x I'd rather keep the release numbers in sync with the spec numbers. 1.1 - 1.1.x, 1.2 - 1.2.x Paul Spencer Matthias Wessendorf wrote: we sould do the same for core next is 1.5.0 and JSF 1.2 stuff should be changed to 2.0.0 On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1.5.0 or 1.6.0. One is as good as the other IMO. You mean 1.6.0 is better because it does not match the 1.1.5 of current core? I think Martin suggested 1.5.0 because it would be in the style of Tomcat 5.0.x vs Tomcat 5.5.x, right? --Manfred On 2/23/07, Paul Spencer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If the version of Tomahawk is not tied to the version of MyFaces, then how about the NEXT version of Tomahawk be 1.6? This would allow Tomahawk, like Tobago, to be version independently of MyFaces. Paul Spencer Martin Marinschek wrote: slightly too late, but 1.1.5 would have been my option as well. other option: 1.5 - and let tomahawk and impl version numbers get out of sync. regards, Martin On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok, thanks for your feedback. Branch 1.1.5 created. --Manfred On 2/23/07, Wendy Smoak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The new tomahawk release number is a trade-off. We must decide between - releasing tomahawk 1.1.4 which is not compatible to core 1.1.4 and therefore might confuse users - skipping tomahawk 1.1.4, stay in sync with core and have a tomahawk 1.1.5 that is 100% compatible to the current core 1.1.5 +1 for Tomahawk 1.1.5 this time around, which will be compatible with Core 1.1.5. (There is plenty of information in the archives if anyone asks what happened to 1.1.4. As Paul points out, Tomcat skips version numbers in their public release series.) -- Wendy -- Dennis Byrne -- Matthias Wessendorf http://tinyurl.com/fmywh further stuff: blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com -- Dennis Byrne -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
[Friday] Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?
well... not in muc. only schnitzel Wiener art, which sucks. the original is the better :-)) hefeweizen kills the JSF.next :) -M On 2/23/07, Jeff Bischoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I saw that post at the time, but figured it was the result of too much doppelbock and wienerschnitzel. ;) Matthias Wessendorf wrote: Well... there was a meeting in munich, during the october fest... and they discussed that... http://wiki.java.net/bin/view/Projects/JSFDaysMunich2006 *snip* Version synchronization. JSF 2.0 renamed JSF 6 to go with Java EE 6. perhaps it was the beer ;))) On 2/23/07, Dennis Byrne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 6.0? Seriously? Dennis Byrne On 2/23/07, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: there was a wiki page which says that they want to have the next version of jsf (2.0) named 6.0 so... I am not really seeing any reason to go from myfaces 1.2 to a 6 ... :-) On 2/23/07, Dennis Byrne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: JSF 1.1 - MyFaces 1.x JSF 1.2 - MyFaces 2.x I'd rather keep the release numbers in sync with the spec numbers. 1.1 - 1.1.x, 1.2 - 1.2.x Paul Spencer Matthias Wessendorf wrote: we sould do the same for core next is 1.5.0 and JSF 1.2 stuff should be changed to 2.0.0 On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1.5.0 or 1.6.0. One is as good as the other IMO. You mean 1.6.0 is better because it does not match the 1.1.5 of current core? I think Martin suggested 1.5.0 because it would be in the style of Tomcat 5.0.x vs Tomcat 5.5.x, right? --Manfred On 2/23/07, Paul Spencer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If the version of Tomahawk is not tied to the version of MyFaces, then how about the NEXT version of Tomahawk be 1.6? This would allow Tomahawk, like Tobago, to be version independently of MyFaces. Paul Spencer Martin Marinschek wrote: slightly too late, but 1.1.5 would have been my option as well. other option: 1.5 - and let tomahawk and impl version numbers get out of sync. regards, Martin On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok, thanks for your feedback. Branch 1.1.5 created. --Manfred On 2/23/07, Wendy Smoak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The new tomahawk release number is a trade-off. We must decide between - releasing tomahawk 1.1.4 which is not compatible to core 1.1.4 and therefore might confuse users - skipping tomahawk 1.1.4, stay in sync with core and have a tomahawk 1.1.5 that is 100% compatible to the current core 1.1.5 +1 for Tomahawk 1.1.5 this time around, which will be compatible with Core 1.1.5. (There is plenty of information in the archives if anyone asks what happened to 1.1.4. As Paul points out, Tomcat skips version numbers in their public release series.) -- Wendy -- Dennis Byrne -- Matthias Wessendorf http://tinyurl.com/fmywh further stuff: blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com -- Dennis Byrne -- Matthias Wessendorf http://tinyurl.com/fmywh further stuff: blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
[Friday] (was Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?)
and tons of beer :-) On 2/23/07, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's Weisswurst we ate! and a lot of that stuff. regards, Martin On 2/23/07, Jeff Bischoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I saw that post at the time, but figured it was the result of too much doppelbock and wienerschnitzel. ;) Matthias Wessendorf wrote: Well... there was a meeting in munich, during the october fest... and they discussed that... http://wiki.java.net/bin/view/Projects/JSFDaysMunich2006 *snip* Version synchronization. JSF 2.0 renamed JSF 6 to go with Java EE 6. perhaps it was the beer ;))) On 2/23/07, Dennis Byrne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 6.0? Seriously? Dennis Byrne On 2/23/07, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: there was a wiki page which says that they want to have the next version of jsf (2.0) named 6.0 so... I am not really seeing any reason to go from myfaces 1.2 to a 6 ... :-) On 2/23/07, Dennis Byrne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: JSF 1.1 - MyFaces 1.x JSF 1.2 - MyFaces 2.x I'd rather keep the release numbers in sync with the spec numbers. 1.1 - 1.1.x, 1.2 - 1.2.x Paul Spencer Matthias Wessendorf wrote: we sould do the same for core next is 1.5.0 and JSF 1.2 stuff should be changed to 2.0.0 On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1.5.0 or 1.6.0. One is as good as the other IMO. You mean 1.6.0 is better because it does not match the 1.1.5 of current core? I think Martin suggested 1.5.0 because it would be in the style of Tomcat 5.0.x vs Tomcat 5.5.x, right? --Manfred On 2/23/07, Paul Spencer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If the version of Tomahawk is not tied to the version of MyFaces, then how about the NEXT version of Tomahawk be 1.6? This would allow Tomahawk, like Tobago, to be version independently of MyFaces. Paul Spencer Martin Marinschek wrote: slightly too late, but 1.1.5 would have been my option as well. other option: 1.5 - and let tomahawk and impl version numbers get out of sync. regards, Martin On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok, thanks for your feedback. Branch 1.1.5 created. --Manfred On 2/23/07, Wendy Smoak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The new tomahawk release number is a trade-off. We must decide between - releasing tomahawk 1.1.4 which is not compatible to core 1.1.4 and therefore might confuse users - skipping tomahawk 1.1.4, stay in sync with core and have a tomahawk 1.1.5 that is 100% compatible to the current core 1.1.5 +1 for Tomahawk 1.1.5 this time around, which will be compatible with Core 1.1.5. (There is plenty of information in the archives if anyone asks what happened to 1.1.4. As Paul points out, Tomcat skips version numbers in their public release series.) -- Wendy -- Dennis Byrne -- Matthias Wessendorf http://tinyurl.com/fmywh further stuff: blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com -- Dennis Byrne -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces -- Matthias Wessendorf http://tinyurl.com/fmywh further stuff: blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?
Yes, of course. Sorry for bringing total confusion into this thread! Although it might seem so, I declare that I did NOT yet drink any beer today. (Only a small glass of wine... ;-) I am +1 for Paul's suggestion: JSF 1.1 - MyFaces 1.x JSF 1.2 - MyFaces 2.x and I am +1 for JSF 2.0 (or JSF6 or whatever) - MyFaces 3.x --Manfred On 2/23/07, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dennis was suggesting JSF 1.1 -- MyFaces 1.1 JSF 1.2 -- MyFaces 1.2 I'm against that - Manfred, your suggestion sounds good. @MyFaces-API: well, Trinidad regards all Trinidad-component classes as a Trinidad-API. We were once discussing on having something like that for MyFaces as well. For Trinidad, a renderer is not in the Trinidad-API, a component is regards, Martin On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, in reallife there should not be (better: must not be) such a thing like a MyFaces-API that differs from the JSF-API, but: Every JSF-Implementation is free to implement certain add-on features or optimizations. These are the things you normally configure with those web.xml config-params. So, what you actually mean when you say MyFaces-API are those features, right? I agree that we need the option to differ between such a feature addition/remove (minor change) and a bug fix release. Therefore +1 on Dennis' suggestion (JSF 1.1 - MyFaces 1.x, JSF 1.2 - MyFaces 2.x) --Manfred On 2/23/07, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Dennis, the problem is that you don't have any leeway to change the MyFaces-API (read: not JSF API) incompatible to what it had been before. Well, given we finally reach the point at which we have a pretty stable API between bugfix-releases. regards, Martin On 2/23/07, Dennis Byrne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: JSF 1.1 - MyFaces 1.x JSF 1.2 - MyFaces 2.x I'd rather keep the release numbers in sync with the spec numbers. 1.1 - 1.1.x, 1.2 - 1.2.x Paul Spencer Matthias Wessendorf wrote: we sould do the same for core next is 1.5.0 and JSF 1.2 stuff should be changed to 2.0.0 On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1.5.0 or 1.6.0. One is as good as the other IMO. You mean 1.6.0 is better because it does not match the 1.1.5 of current core? I think Martin suggested 1.5.0 because it would be in the style of Tomcat 5.0.x vs Tomcat 5.5.x, right? --Manfred On 2/23/07, Paul Spencer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If the version of Tomahawk is not tied to the version of MyFaces, then how about the NEXT version of Tomahawk be 1.6? This would allow Tomahawk, like Tobago, to be version independently of MyFaces. Paul Spencer Martin Marinschek wrote: slightly too late, but 1.1.5 would have been my option as well. other option: 1.5 - and let tomahawk and impl version numbers get out of sync. regards, Martin On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok, thanks for your feedback. Branch 1.1.5 created. --Manfred On 2/23/07, Wendy Smoak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The new tomahawk release number is a trade-off. We must decide between - releasing tomahawk 1.1.4 which is not compatible to core 1.1.4 and therefore might confuse users - skipping tomahawk 1.1.4, stay in sync with core and have a tomahawk 1.1.5 that is 100% compatible to the current core 1.1.5 +1 for Tomahawk 1.1.5 this time around, which will be compatible with Core 1.1.5. (There is plenty of information in the archives if anyone asks what happened to 1.1.4. As Paul points out, Tomcat skips version numbers in their public release series.) -- Wendy -- Dennis Byrne -- 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: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?
I am +1 for Paul's suggestion: JSF 1.1 - MyFaces 1.x JSF 1.2 - MyFaces 2.x and I am +1 for JSF 2.0 (or JSF6 or whatever) - MyFaces 3.x thanks!!
Suggested Version number roadmap (was Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?)
This is to summarize the version number discussion. MyFaces for JSF 1.1 1.1.5 - Current Release (Announced 19-Feb-2007) 1.1.6 - Next release not currently scheduled MyFaces for JSF 1.2 2.0.0 - Currently being developed as MyFaces 1.2 MyFaces for JSF 2.0 / JSF 6 3.0.0 - ? Tomahawk for JSF 1.1 1.1.3 - Current Release (Announced 14-Jun-2006) 1.1.5 - Next release, currently in process 1.6.0 - Following release Tomahawk for JSF 1.2 2.x - Not started Paul Spencer
Re: Suggested Version number roadmap (was Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?)
+1 Thanks! --Manfred On 2/23/07, Paul Spencer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is to summarize the version number discussion. MyFaces for JSF 1.1 1.1.5 - Current Release (Announced 19-Feb-2007) 1.1.6 - Next release not currently scheduled MyFaces for JSF 1.2 2.0.0 - Currently being developed as MyFaces 1.2 MyFaces for JSF 2.0 / JSF 6 3.0.0 - ? Tomahawk for JSF 1.1 1.1.3 - Current Release (Announced 14-Jun-2006) 1.1.5 - Next release, currently in process 1.6.0 - Following release Tomahawk for JSF 1.2 2.x - Not started Paul Spencer
Re: Suggested Version number roadmap (was Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?)
Paul Spencer wrote: This is to summarize the version number discussion. MyFaces for JSF 1.1 1.1.5 - Current Release (Announced 19-Feb-2007) 1.1.6 - Next release not currently scheduled MyFaces for JSF 1.2 2.0.0 - Currently being developed as MyFaces 1.2 MyFaces for JSF 2.0 / JSF 6 3.0.0 - ? Tomahawk for JSF 1.1 1.1.3 - Current Release (Announced 14-Jun-2006) 1.1.5 - Next release, currently in process 1.6.0 - Following release Tomahawk for JSF 1.2 2.x - Not started Paul Spencer Wow, that looks pretty good. :)
Re: Suggested Version number roadmap (was Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?)
I don't think Tomahawk has proved yet that it is independent from core versioning. Take the MyFaces Core 1.1.4 incompatiblities between Tomahawk 1.1.5 as an example. I think we should take a wait and see attitude before we decide we're going to start with Tomahawk 1.6 numbering.Remember, we started with Tomahawk 1.1.3 as independent of core and we've still not accomplished the task with releases to date. And if it's truely independent from the core, then it would mean that someone could use Tomahawk 1.1.5 for any version of MyFaces, 1.1.4, 1.1.3, 1.1.2, 1.1.1, 1.0.9, etc., and we know that's not the case. -Mike On 2/23/07, Paul Spencer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is to summarize the version number discussion. MyFaces for JSF 1.1 1.1.5 - Current Release (Announced 19-Feb-2007) 1.1.6 - Next release not currently scheduled MyFaces for JSF 1.2 2.0.0 - Currently being developed as MyFaces 1.2 MyFaces for JSF 2.0 / JSF 6 3.0.0 - ? Tomahawk for JSF 1.1 1.1.3 - Current Release (Announced 14-Jun-2006) 1.1.5 - Next release, currently in process 1.6.0 - Following release Tomahawk for JSF 1.2 2.x - Not started Paul Spencer
Re: Suggested Version number roadmap (was Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?)
I think a version number which is more similar to JSF standard versions will be much easier for beginners. and less confusing On 2/23/07, Paul Spencer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is to summarize the version number discussion. MyFaces for JSF 1.1 1.1.5 - Current Release (Announced 19-Feb-2007) 1.1.6 - Next release not currently scheduled MyFaces for JSF 1.2 2.0.0 - Currently being developed as MyFaces 1.2 MyFaces for JSF 2.0 / JSF 6 3.0.0 - ? Tomahawk for JSF 1.1 1.1.3 - Current Release (Announced 14-Jun-2006) 1.1.5 - Next release, currently in process 1.6.0 - Following release Tomahawk for JSF 1.2 2.x - Not started Paul Spencer -- Arash Rajaeeyan
Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?
:-) +1 On 2/22/07, Paul Spencer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We just completed a MyFaces 1.1.5 release, which resolved blockers related to Tomahawk. Can we get a Tomahawk release done before we start changing things for Fusion? Paul Spencer -- Matthias Wessendorf http://tinyurl.com/fmywh further stuff: blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?
+1 on this idea. Tomahawk has settled down since the Dojo move and has been running relatively stable. Best to ensure the next release is branched sometime before any more big changes. (Tomahawk 1.1.4 RC is very good too) :) Paul Spencer wrote: We just completed a MyFaces 1.1.5 release, which resolved blockers related to Tomahawk. Can we get a Tomahawk release done before we start changing things for Fusion? Paul Spencer
