[trinidad] cleanup

2011-10-05 Thread Gerhard Petracek
hi @ all, there are still over 400 deprecations (via @Deprecated) and nearly 400 via javadoc (not all of them overlap). a lot of them are in for a long time and some of them were deprecated even before [1]. however, some parts are still used and can't be removed. imo we should do a cleanup or

Re: [trinidad] cleanup

2011-10-05 Thread Mark Struberg
: Gerhard Petracek gerhard.petra...@gmail.com To: MyFaces Development dev@myfaces.apache.org Cc: Scott O'Bryan darkar...@gmail.com Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2011 11:09 AM Subject: [trinidad] cleanup hi @ all, there are still over 400 deprecations (via @Deprecated) and nearly 400 via javadoc

Re: [trinidad] cleanup

2011-10-05 Thread Scott O'Bryan
: Gerhard Petracek gerhard.petra...@gmail.com To: MyFaces Development dev@myfaces.apache.org Cc: Scott O'Bryan darkar...@gmail.com Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2011 11:09 AM Subject: [trinidad] cleanup hi @ all, there are still over 400 deprecations (via @Deprecated) and nearly 400 via javadoc

Re: [trinidad] cleanup

2011-10-05 Thread Scott O'Bryan
Gerhard, by deprivation hints, I'm assuming you mean the javadoc deprecations and not the annotations, right? Sent from my iPhone On Oct 5, 2011, at 3:09 AM, Gerhard Petracek gerhard.petra...@gmail.com wrote: hi @ all, there are still over 400 deprecations (via @Deprecated) and nearly 400 via

Re: [trinidad] cleanup

2011-10-05 Thread Adam Furmanczuk
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Sorry, I could not resists to comment on Iphone: deprivation ;) Greets, Adam Gerhard, by deprivation hints, I'm assuming you mean the javadoc deprecations and not the annotations, right? Sent from my iPhone On Oct 5, 2011, at 3:09 AM,

Re: [trinidad] cleanup

2011-10-05 Thread Gerhard Petracek
both - there are just two possibilities: those parts are really deprecated and we remove them (and refactor the rest) or we can't remove them and the information (annotation and/or javadoc) isn't correct. regards, gerhard http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and

Re: [trinidad] cleanup

2011-10-05 Thread Scott O'Bryan
Well just because something is depth aged doesn't mean we can remove it. It just means that an alternate means is suggested or something may not work exactly as expected if used. A Prime example is ExternalContextUtils. That guy has been around since JSF 1.1. It contains lots of functionality

Re: [trinidad] cleanup

2011-10-05 Thread Scott O'Bryan
Argh.. Now I'm getting iPhone-isms as well.. ;) Sent from my iPhone On Oct 5, 2011, at 5:06 AM, Scott O'Bryan darkar...@gmail.com wrote: Well just because something is depth aged doesn't mean we can remove it. It just means that an alternate means is suggested or something may not work

Re: [trinidad] cleanup

2011-10-05 Thread Gerhard Petracek
some implementations of old apis are already delegating to the corresponding jsf2 apis. however, there are still even pre jsf 1.x classes in the impl. module. imo we should think about a special backward compatibility module as an alternative. regards, gerhard http://www.irian.at Your JSF

Re: [trinidad] cleanup

2011-10-05 Thread Mark Struberg
cleaning those areas up. Just leave behind the old stuff. LieGrue, strub From: Scott O'Bryan darkar...@gmail.com To: MyFaces Development dev@myfaces.apache.org Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2011 1:06 PM Subject: Re: [trinidad] cleanup Well just because something

Re: [trinidad] cleanup

2011-10-05 Thread Scott O'Bryan
: Wednesday, October 5, 2011 1:06 PM Subject: Re: [trinidad] cleanup Well just because something is depth aged doesn't mean we can remove it. It just means that an alternate means is suggested or something may not work exactly as expected if used. A Prime example is ExternalContextUtils. That guy

Re: [trinidad] cleanup

2011-10-05 Thread Gerhard Petracek
5, 2011 2:20 PM Subject: Re: [trinidad] cleanup We could, yes. But we would force people to migrate apps which, perhaps is not a bad thing but traditionally we've taken a full vote before changing/removing API's in Trinidad because, doing so, incurs additional cost on the other

Re: [trinidad] cleanup

2011-10-05 Thread Scott O'Bryan
would of course remain the way it is currently! LieGrue, strub - Original Message - From: Scott O'Bryandarkar...@gmail.com To: dev@myfaces.apache.org Cc: Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2011 2:20 PM Subject: Re: [trinidad] cleanup We could, yes. But we would force people to migrate apps

Re: [trinidad] cleanup

2011-10-05 Thread Scott O'Bryan
...@gmail.com To: dev@myfaces.apache.org mailto:dev@myfaces.apache.org Cc: Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2011 2:20 PM Subject: Re: [trinidad] cleanup We could, yes. But we would force people to migrate apps which, perhaps is not a bad thing but traditionally we've

Re: [trinidad] cleanup

2011-10-05 Thread Max Starets
Subject: Re: [trinidad] cleanup We could, yes. But we would force people to migrate apps which, perhaps is not a bad thing but traditionally we've taken a full vote before changing/removing API's in Trinidad because, doing so, incurs additional cost on the other

Re: [trinidad] cleanup

2011-10-05 Thread Gerhard Petracek
:20 PM Subject: Re: [trinidad] cleanup We could, yes. But we would force people to migrate apps which, perhaps is not a bad thing but traditionally we've taken a full vote before changing/removing API's in Trinidad because, doing so, incurs additional cost on the other frameworks which

Re: [trinidad] cleanup

2011-10-05 Thread Gerhard Petracek
...@gmail.com To: dev@myfaces.apache.org Cc: Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2011 2:20 PM Subject: Re: [trinidad] cleanup We could, yes. But we would force people to migrate apps which, perhaps is not a bad thing but traditionally we've taken a full vote before changing/removing API's

Re: [trinidad] cleanup

2011-10-05 Thread Scott O'Bryan
: [trinidad] cleanup We could, yes. But we would force people to migrate apps which, perhaps is not a bad thing but traditionally we've taken a full vote before changing/removing API's in Trinidad because, doing so, incurs additional cost on the other frameworks which are using Trinidad

Re: [trinidad] cleanup

2011-10-05 Thread Scott O'Bryan
. All the JSF-1 stuff would of course remain the way it is currently! LieGrue, strub - Original Message - From: Scott O'Bryan darkar...@gmail.com To: dev@myfaces.apache.org Cc: Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2011 2:20 PM Subject: Re: [trinidad] cleanup We could, yes

Re: [trinidad] cleanup

2011-10-05 Thread Blake Sullivan
it is currently! LieGrue, strub - Original Message - From: Scott O'Bryandarkar...@gmail.com To: dev@myfaces.apache.org Cc: Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2011 2:20 PM Subject: Re: [trinidad] cleanup We could, yes. But we would force people to migrate apps which, perhaps is not a bad thing

Re: [trinidad] cleanup

2011-10-05 Thread Gerhard Petracek
- Original Message - From: Scott O'Bryandarkar...@gmail.com To: dev@myfaces.apache.org Cc: Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2011 2:20 PM Subject: Re: [trinidad] cleanup We could, yes. But we would force people to migrate apps which, perhaps is not a bad thing but traditionally we've

Re: [trinidad] cleanup

2011-10-05 Thread Scott O'Bryan
mailto:dev@myfaces.apache.org Cc: Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2011 2:20 PM Subject: Re: [trinidad] cleanup We could, yes. But we would force people to migrate apps which, perhaps is not a bad thing