is there a reason, why we have the findNestingForm method twice?
with the same logic.
I'd like to refactor that, if there is no real reason.
-M
--
Matthias Wessendorf
http://tinyurl.com/fmywh
further stuff:
blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
Right,
I pinged martin already on FacesIO when he changed the client side params.
On 11/16/06, Cagatay Civici [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Gerald,
I've checked out FacesIO and it uses old client side params like jsf_state
to restore whereas 1.1.5 core uses javax.faces.ViewState.
But having
Gerald Müllan schrieb:
Hi,
well, the dojo guys changed from version 0.3.1 to 0.4 not that long
time ago but we are still using 0.3.1. We agreed to only migrate to a
more recent version until some time has come
(For about 1-2 months).
The 0.4.0 upgrade wont happen, there are some issues
Werner Punz schrieb:
Gerald Müllan schrieb:
Hi,
well, the dojo guys changed from version 0.3.1 to 0.4 not that long
time ago but we are still using 0.3.1. We agreed to only migrate to a
more recent version until some time has come
(For about 1-2 months).
The 0.4.0 upgrade wont happen,
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TOMAHAWK-780?page=all ]
Werner Punz resolved TOMAHAWK-780.
--
Resolution: Fixed
I am setting this issue to resolved now since ariel does not answer, but I am
not quite sure if the missing content length was the
I have several projects that are moving from demoware to production.
The demoware versions use a snapshot of Tomahawk 1.1.4, so I need for
Tomahawk 1.1.4 to be released for the production versions.
To this end, I have submitted patches for MyFaces and Tomahawk, and will
continue to submit
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MYFACES-1488?page=comments#action_12450766
]
Wendy Smoak commented on MYFACES-1488:
--
If it was developed at or contributed to the ASF, yes, it should have a license
header. (Third party works get
Hi Werner,
I understand your points.
I am wondering, why this was not discussed, or did I just miss the thread?
I saw your emails in the past on dojo integration, but nothing on a
topic like should we introduce dojo 0.4.
Thanks to SVN blame (Revision: 473277) I couldn't find a jira issue for
Matthias Wessendorf schrieb:
Hi Werner,
I understand your points.
I am wondering, why this was not discussed, or did I just miss the thread?
I saw your emails in the past on dojo integration, but nothing on a
topic like should we introduce dojo 0.4.
Thanks to SVN blame (Revision:
Anyway, the update is done, +1 for leaving the codebase in unless
something serious arises. I just would have preferred to have it the
usual way with a voting upfront, I want to avoid situations where we
have it in and I cannot test upfront or have tested upfront and am aware
of showstoppers
[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TOMAHAWK-767?page=all ]
Grant Smith updated TOMAHAWK-767:
-
Status: Resolved (was: Patch Available)
Fix Version/s: (was: 1.1.4-SNAPSHOT)
Resolution: Fixed
These headers have already been
Curses.. I forgot to commit. OK, they're in now.
On 11/16/06, Paul Spencer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Grant,
I do not see the files added by the patch:
maven\build-tools\src\main\resources\config\myfaces-checks.xml
maven\build-tools\src\main\resources\config\myfaces-header.txt
In addition
12 matches
Mail list logo
