this is great news ?
Is there a blog entry for this ? :)
Please ping the Seam-users (via their forum).
Thanks!!
Next weekend, there is the hackaton, let's wait till then, ok ?
-Matthias
On Dec 5, 2007 7:08 PM, Grant Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OK I managed to get MyFaces 1.2.1-SNAPSHOT a
OK I managed to get MyFaces 1.2.1-SNAPSHOT and Seam 2.0.0GA working without
problem !
I would say it is a great time to release :)
On Nov 30, 2007 1:58 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> cool!
> a nice wiki page!!
>
> On Nov 30, 2007 7:43 PM, Bruno Aranda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wr
cool!
a nice wiki page!!
On Nov 30, 2007 7:43 PM, Bruno Aranda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And on one of the console outputs from the how-to, it is possible to
> read that MyFaces is initializing
>
> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GMOxSAMPLES/Running+JBoss+Seam+2.0.0.GA+on+Geronimo+2.
And on one of the console outputs from the how-to, it is possible to
read that MyFaces is initializing
http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GMOxSAMPLES/Running+JBoss+Seam+2.0.0.GA+on+Geronimo+2.1
Cheers,
Bruno
On 30/11/2007, Bruno Aranda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have seen a message
I have seen a message today on the Geronimo's mailing list with a
howto on running seam on Geronimo. That should mean that it runs fine
with myfaces...
Cheers,
Bruno
On 30/11/2007, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Grant, if you are using Seam or active in that community,
> please
Grant, if you are using Seam or active in that community,
please try the combi :-)
On Nov 30, 2007 6:55 PM, Grant Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Does anyone have any experience with this potential release, and Seam
> 2.0.0.GA ? Recently (well about 4 months ago now), Seam dumped Myfaces in
> f
Does anyone have any experience with this potential release, and Seam
2.0.0.GA ? Recently (well about 4 months ago now), Seam dumped Myfaces in
favor of the RI, so it would be excellent to get our foot back in that door,
so to speak.
On Nov 30, 2007 9:32 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
k
On Nov 30, 2007 6:30 PM, Paul McMahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 30, 2007, at 12:17 PM, Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
>
> > This user was able to *swap* the RI out and put the 121-SNAPSHOT in.
> >
> > I think, that is a good point to kick a release out.
> > Are there any bugs open, that ne
On Nov 30, 2007, at 12:17 PM, Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
This user was able to *swap* the RI out and put the 121-SNAPSHOT in.
I think, that is a good point to kick a release out.
Are there any bugs open, that needs to make it into 121-line ?
Should we just release it?
Or should we provide at l
D] On Behalf
> Of
> > Matthias Wessendorf
> > Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 11:17 AM
> > To: MyFaces Discussion
> > Subject: Re: Help with Myfaces-core-1.2.0
> >
> > to make it short.
> >
> > A 1.2.1 will be out soon.
> > That is more! stable.
Sean-
I don't have a login to JIRA at the moment, and need to leave for home
in a sec so don't want to take the time to sign up just now, but I
think you hit the nail on the head with your latest comment.
Line 280 in PropertyResolverImpl clearly is the problem. It
should *always* return Object.c
If you get a chance can someone help me out with MYFACES-623. It's
impeding my ability to use Shale with MyFaces and I am a little
overwhelmed with all of the EL stuff.
TIA,
sean
My bad, I presumed and had implemented those additional variables within
the RI way back.
I actually think it should be built in. When we talk about issues in
the alignment of JSP, this only adds to the confusion.
Yes, JSF is meant to be portable, but at the component level, backed by
variables
On Friday 12 August 2005 09:22, Craig McClanahan wrote:
> On 8/12/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It looks like the implicit Object map is missing the following:
> >
> > application
> > request
> > session
>
> Personally, I would suggest that we *not* try to make implicit
> var
On 8/12/05, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> That being said, a 30 line custom variable resolver implementation
> could add this very easily.
>
Or just a slightly longer expression:
#{facesContext.externalContext.request}
But my cautions about depending on this still apply.
On 8/12/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> It looks like the implicit Object map is missing the following:
>
> application
> request
> session
>
Personally, I would suggest that we *not* try to make implicit
variables for these objects. The main reason is that they will be
di
It looks like the implicit Object map is missing the following:
application
request
session
-- Jacob
Mike Kienenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 08/12/2005, 05:26:18 PM:
> No, your email got there (both of them), but I had not had time to read it
> yet.
>
> Martin, a committer, also answer
17 matches
Mail list logo
