[EMAIL PROTECTED] is the right choice for this.
-M
On 9/7/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here is a direct SVN link:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/site-author/ip-clearance/jsr-301-ri.xml
--Manfred
On 9/7/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I committed the ip-clearance under the name jsr-301-ri.xml 3 days ago.
But it did not show up yet. Perhaps we have to ping someone to rebuild
the incubator site?
--Manfred
On 9/1/07, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, but I think the ruling says that the commit needs to be done by
Wendy,
I did the upload for md5/sha1
-M
On 9/1/07, Wendy Smoak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/1/07, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Should we ask on [EMAIL PROTECTED] if there is someone who wants to support
us? Shouldn't be too complicated, right? As soon as I get a link / the
Hi Scott,
via javascript - I just add it dynamically on the client. Works for
all major browsers just fine.
regards,
Martin
On 9/4/07, Scott O'Bryan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How are you getting the stylesheet reference into the header now?
JSR-168 does not have a means of doing this.
Scott
Well that can always be done, namespacing or not. Trinidad has a slight
advantage on this in that our skinning system generates the ids and all
the mappings throughout the renderkit. So adding a namespace should be
pretty straight forward.
Scott
Martin Marinschek wrote:
Hi Scott,
via
Yes, that's true!
regards,
Martin
On 9/7/07, Scott O'Bryan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well that can always be done, namespacing or not. Trinidad has a slight
advantage on this in that our skinning system generates the ids and all
the mappings throughout the renderkit. So adding a namespace
How are you getting the stylesheet reference into the header now?
JSR-168 does not have a means of doing this.
Scott
Martin Marinschek wrote:
Yes, sure - it's the same problem. I've added it via javascript to the
head, works as well. Just adding it somewhere in the content might
work, but is
Yes, sure - it's the same problem. I've added it via javascript to the
head, works as well. Just adding it somewhere in the content might
work, but is essentially invalid html.
regards,
Martin
On 8/31/07, Scott O'Bryan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What I envisioned for Trinidad is namespacing the
Ok guys,
can you send me the IP-Clearance-form as well? It should be a small
segment of X(HT)ML code. Can you tell me who is the Apache member who
took on to commit this?
regards,
Martin
On 8/31/07, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Matthias, Scott,
has the IP Clearance form
my guess is nobody...,yet !
-M
On 9/1/07, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok guys,
can you send me the IP-Clearance-form as well? It should be a small
segment of X(HT)ML code. Can you tell me who is the Apache member who
took on to commit this?
regards,
Martin
On 8/31/07,
Should we ask on [EMAIL PROTECTED] if there is someone who wants to support
us? Shouldn't be too complicated, right? As soon as I get a link / the
document, I'll ask there.
regards,
Martin
On 9/1/07, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
my guess is nobody...,yet !
-M
On 9/1/07,
+1
can u take over ?
On 9/1/07, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Should we ask on [EMAIL PROTECTED] if there is someone who wants to support
us? Shouldn't be too complicated, right? As soon as I get a link / the
document, I'll ask there.
regards,
Martin
On 9/1/07, Matthias
Sure - baby has settled in, I can take over. But there is not a form
yet, right? So I'll need to prepare this together with Scott, I
suppose.
regards,
Martin
On 9/1/07, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1
can u take over ?
On 9/1/07, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/1/07, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Should we ask on [EMAIL PROTECTED] if there is someone who wants to support
us? Shouldn't be too complicated, right? As soon as I get a link / the
document, I'll ask there.
(Not following this one closely, but) follow the instructions here:
Yes, but I think the ruling says that the commit needs to be done by
an Apache member.
regards,
Martin
On 9/1/07, Wendy Smoak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/1/07, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Should we ask on [EMAIL PROTECTED] if there is someone who wants to support
us?
Hi Matthias, Scott,
has the IP Clearance form already been filled out and committed?
regards,
Martin
On 8/17/07, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
but all this, can be fixed, when it's already committed.
We needed NOTICE and LICENSE files inside both JARs as well.
-M
On
What I envisioned for Trinidad is namespacing the CSS file and loading
it outside of the head. Would something like that be a possibility for
Tomohawk? I mean I imagine any bridge would have this issue would it not?
Scott
Martin Marinschek wrote:
My guess is that Tomahawk won't run out of
Hey everyone. After tearing though the buerocracy much slower then I
would have liked, I uploaded the code to MYFACES-1664 for the JSR-301
Portlet Bridge. This code should comply with the latest public draft of
the JSR-301 specification and, once we figure out where to put this and
get it
Hey everyone. After tearing though the bureaucracy much slower then I
would have liked, I uploaded the code to MYFACES-1664 for the JSR-301
Portlet Bridge. This code should comply with the latest public draft of
the JSR-301 specification and, once we figure out where to put this and
get it
Sounds good to me. Should we open up a discussion though on where
this should be committed so that we can hit the ground running once the
paperwork is listed?
Scott
Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
On 8/17/07, Scott O'Bryan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hey everyone. After tearing though the
there was no real tomahawk bridge.
that stuff is part of myfaces 1.1 (the core impl)
the difference here is that 301 specifies a way, how a JSF 1.2
application should work inside a portal.
for jsf 1.1 there was just a note like JSF 1.1 should run in a
portlet... (very simplified statement)
So,
On 8/17/07, Scott O'Bryan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hey everyone. After tearing though the bureaucracy much slower then I
would have liked, I uploaded the code to MYFACES-1664 for the JSR-301
Portlet Bridge. This code should comply with the latest public draft of
the JSR-301 specification
Or yeah, what Matthias said. :)
Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
there was no real tomahawk bridge.
that stuff is part of myfaces 1.1 (the core impl)
the difference here is that 301 specifies a way, how a JSF 1.2
application should work inside a portal.
for jsf 1.1 there was just a note like JSF
sure, that's fine.
I think somewhere like
-myfaces
-portal-bridge
like a regular subproject, since it should be independent from myfaces 1.2.x
-Matthias
On 8/17/07, Scott O'Bryan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sounds good to me. Should we open up a discussion though on where
this should be
Yeah, I agree with that one. That was kinda my thought as well. Other
then the fact that it will be used for the R.I., we're going to have a
need to release versions of the bridge as EITHER JSF OR the portlet
framework rev. So we'll need to be a little more dynamic I'm thinking
on our
Does this bridge replace Tomahawk bridge?
On Aug 17, 2007, at 10:39 AM, Scott O'Bryan wrote:
Sounds good to me. Should we open up a discussion though on
where this should be committed so that we can hit the ground
running once the paperwork is listed?
Scott
Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
Excellent news!
Thanks!
On Aug 17, 2007, at 10:59 AM, Scott O'Bryan wrote:
Not yet, but I think it should eventually. This bridge is going to
be the standard as far as the JCP is concerned and the R.I. will be
taken from the work done here at Apache. It's going to evolve with
Portal
yeah, sort of.
there are currently (mainly for JSF 1.1) tons of JSF-Bridges
-Apache MyFaces Core (not Tomahawk ;-) )
-Apache Portals Bridges (they have that for old school struts as well)
-Suns RI has a module for JSF-Portlet integration
-,,,
so, this one fixes that.
It's a standard
javax.
Right. But for 1.2 and higher JSF implementations, you would not need
to use another bridge. This one should be the only one you'd need.
Scott
Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
yeah, sort of.
there are currently (mainly for JSF 1.1) tons of JSF-Bridges
-Apache MyFaces Core (not Tomahawk ;-) )
:-)
Yes, but I guess there might be some more impls out there,
like one that comes with the container ;-)
So, yes only one that goes with 301 (like this one ;-) )
-M
On 8/17/07, Scott O'Bryan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Right. But for 1.2 and higher JSF implementations, you would not need
to
Hey, it looks like I did the impl, just not the API. I'm fixing that now.
That said, does the liscence need to be in the POM files? I didn't
notice a liscence in the MyFaces 1.2 POM files... I have no problems
putting it in, certainly, but we may want to make the 1.2 branch of
MyFaces
but all this, can be fixed, when it's already committed.
We needed NOTICE and LICENSE files inside both JARs as well.
-M
On 8/17/07, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
yes pom as well.
and also files in:
-META-INF/services/
-META-INF/
@myfaces: a bug
On 8/17/07,
Not yet, but I think it should eventually. This bridge is going to be
the standard as far as the JCP is concerned and the R.I. will be taken
from the work done here at Apache. It's going to evolve with Portal
standards (like JSR-286) and should be able to influence JSF 2.0 to
allow JSF to be
Ok.. but with this bridge and the right version of myfaces you would
not need something like the tomahawk bridge any more...
thanks a bunch!
On Aug 17, 2007, at 10:54 AM, Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
there was no real tomahawk bridge.
that stuff is part of myfaces 1.1 (the core impl)
the
Hey Scott,
did a quick look.
POMs and API .java class have to contain the Apache 2.0 license as well.
Greetings,
Matthias
PS: build runs :-)
On 8/17/07, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
there was no real tomahawk bridge.
that stuff is part of myfaces 1.1 (the core impl)
Aarg.. I thought I forgot something. Let me fix that and upload the zip.
Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
Hey Scott,
did a quick look.
POMs and API .java class have to contain the Apache 2.0 license as well.
Greetings,
Matthias
PS: build runs :-)
On 8/17/07, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL
Hi,
yes pom as well.
and also files in:
-META-INF/services/
-META-INF/
@myfaces: a bug
On 8/17/07, Scott O'Bryan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hey, it looks like I did the impl, just not the API. I'm fixing that now.
That said, does the liscence need to be in the POM files? I didn't
37 matches
Mail list logo
