Forgot to vote.. :) +1
On 03/24/2011 10:32 AM, Scott O'Bryan wrote:
Hello Everyone,
I was running the tasks needed to get the Trinidad Maven Plugins v.
2.0.5 released and not I need a vote as to whether everything looks
good or not. There were some minor fixes and the plugins now mark the
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 6:06 PM, Leonardo Uribe lu4...@gmail.com wrote:
I have created these issues:
http://java.net/jira/browse/JAVASERVERFACES_SPEC_PUBLIC-952
Thank you Leonardo!
Although we are in between JSRs now, I sent mail to the old
jsr-314-open list to see whether we can address this
Thanks, Leonardo!
You rock!
Max
On 3/24/2011 6:06 PM, Leonardo Uribe wrote:
Hi
I have created these issues:
http://java.net/jira/browse/JAVASERVERFACES_SPEC_PUBLIC-952
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MYFACES-3082
I agree with the proposed behavior, and I don't think do it could
Hello Everyone,
I was running the tasks needed to get the Trinidad Maven Plugins v.
2.0.5 released and not I need a vote as to whether everything looks good
or not. There were some minor fixes and the plugins now mark the
trinidad package as being metadata complete in order to help avoid
+1
On 3/24/2011 12:32 PM, Scott O'Bryan wrote:
Hello Everyone,
I was running the tasks needed to get the Trinidad Maven Plugins v.
2.0.5 released and not I need a vote as to whether everything looks
good or not. There were some minor fixes and the plugins now mark the
trinidad package as
+1. Thanks for putting this together Scott!
Andy
Hi
As a side note:
SO There were some minor fixes and the plugins now mark the trinidad package
SO as being metadata complete in order to help avoid having to
scan the jar for
SO class annotations at runtime.
Reading JSF 2.0 spec, metadata-complete is only used on
WEB-INF/faces-config.xml.
Hey Leonrado,
The change is to allow the plugin to generate metadata-complete=true for
trinidad-impl's faces-config.xml.
See https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TRINIDAD-2068
Max
On 3/24/2011 3:50 PM, Leonardo Uribe wrote:
Hi
As a side note:
SO There were some minor fixes and the
+1
-- Blake Sullivan
On 3/24/11 9:32 AM, Scott O'Bryan wrote:
Hello Everyone,
I was running the tasks needed to get the Trinidad Maven Plugins v.
2.0.5 released and not I need a vote as to whether everything looks
good or not. There were some minor fixes and the plugins now mark the
Hi
2011/3/24 Max Starets max.star...@oracle.com:
Hey Leonrado,
The change is to allow the plugin to generate metadata-complete=true for
trinidad-impl's faces-config.xml.
See https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TRINIDAD-2068
The problem here is this config will be ignored by myfaces core,
Well there ya go. Thanks for commenting Leonardo. I did not know
that.. :D
Is this going to be a showstopper for the release or (since it's
ignored) are people okay with having it in our FacesConfig for now? I
personally think it can't hurt but the spec does seem pretty clear on
the
Leonardo,
I have tested metadata-complete with Mojarra, and it is not ignored. I
can point you to the Mojarra code that does the check.
From what I understand, this feature was included a while ago (during
the initial 2.0 release) after Andy Schwartz lobbied for it. It looks
like the spec was
Leonardo,
The check in Mojarra is done in
com.sun.faces.config.ConfigManager.getAnnotationScanURLs().
Andy can probably dig out EG e-mails where this was agreed.
Thanks,
Max
On 3/24/2011 5:35 PM, Max Starets wrote:
Leonardo,
I have tested metadata-complete with Mojarra, and it is not
I, for one, am all for having it in. It's not like it will break anything
and if it gives a performance boost, all the better.
Max, we may want to generate a bug against the spec to see if they can fix
that. Is that possible?
On Mar 24, 2011, at 3:49 PM, Max Starets max.star...@oracle.com
Gang -
Looking back at the EG emails, I realize now that I dropped the ball
on making sure that my proposed changes actually made it into the
spec.
Here was my original email (Metadata complete jar files) from
Septeber 3, 2009:
Gang -
Section 11.5.1 of the spec defines the following
Hi
I have created these issues:
http://java.net/jira/browse/JAVASERVERFACES_SPEC_PUBLIC-952
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MYFACES-3082
I agree with the proposed behavior, and I don't think do it could
cause any problems. So from my side there is no objections about the
artifacts
Hey Andy,
I'm wondering if there should be a TCK check for this as well since the
behavior has come into question.
Scott
On 03/24/2011 03:57 PM, Andy Schwartz wrote:
Gang -
Looking back at the EG emails, I realize now that I dropped the ball
on making sure that my proposed changes actually
Is that a +1? :D
On Mar 24, 2011, at 4:06 PM, Leonardo Uribe lu4...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi
I have created these issues:
http://java.net/jira/browse/JAVASERVERFACES_SPEC_PUBLIC-952
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MYFACES-3082
I agree with the proposed behavior, and I don't think do
+1
2011/3/24 Scott O'Bryan darkar...@gmail.com:
Is that a +1? :D
On Mar 24, 2011, at 4:06 PM, Leonardo Uribe lu4...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi
I have created these issues:
http://java.net/jira/browse/JAVASERVERFACES_SPEC_PUBLIC-952
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MYFACES-3082
I agree
19 matches
Mail list logo
