Re: [JSF 1.2] question

2006-06-08 Thread Manfred Geiler
On 6/7/06, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, Jacob asked me if I'd like to join up. If I'd join, then as an individual. Why not as the official ASF representative for JSF.next? Of course there should be an official vote, but from my POV there speaks nothing against you joining

Re: [JSF 1.2] question

2006-06-08 Thread Matthias Wessendorf
+1 on Martin. Eventuelly I'd like to join as an individual. but Martin should be the ASF JSF guy. -Matthias On 6/8/06, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 6/7/06, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, Jacob asked me if I'd like to join up. If I'd join, then as an

Re: [JSF 1.2] question

2006-06-08 Thread Dennis Byrne
+1 for Mr. M Dennis Byrne -Original Message- From: Matthias Wessendorf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2006 04:05 PM To: 'MyFaces Development' Subject: Re: [JSF 1.2] question +1 on Martin. Eventuelly I'd like to join as an individual. but Martin should be the ASF JSF

Re: [JSF 1.2] question

2006-06-08 Thread Mario Ivankovits
Yeaa, lets give him fun ;-) +1 for Doc M Mario +1 for Mr. M Dennis Byrne -Original Message- From: Matthias Wessendorf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2006 04:05 PM To: 'MyFaces Development' Subject: Re: [JSF 1.2] question +1 on Martin. Eventuelly I'd

Re: [JSF 1.2] question

2006-06-08 Thread Grant Smith
+1On 6/8/06, Mario Ivankovits [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yeaa, lets give him fun ;-)+1 for Doc MMario +1 for Mr. M Dennis Byrne -Original Message- From: Matthias Wessendorf [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2006 04:05 PM To: 'MyFaces Development' Subject: Re: [JSF 1.2

Re: [JSF 1.2] question

2006-06-08 Thread Sean Schofield
Wessendorf [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2006 04:05 PM To: 'MyFaces Development' Subject: Re: [JSF 1.2] question +1 on Martin. Eventuelly I'd like to join as an individual. but Martin should be the ASF JSF guy. -Matthias On 6/8/06, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL

Re: [JSF 1.2] question

2006-06-07 Thread Craig McClanahan
On 6/6/06, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: tracking system), but there hasn't been a formal roadmap for JSF.nextso is JSF.next the project name for it?No, JSF.next is shorthand for whatever version follows JSF 1.2 . Without a formal roadmap, there's no guarantee that the next version

Re: [JSF 1.2] question

2006-06-07 Thread Martin Marinschek
Well, Jacob asked me if I'd like to join up. If I'd join, then as an individual.I have some very specific ideas about JSF 2.0, though.regards,MartinOn 6/7/06, Craig McClanahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 6/6/06, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: tracking system), but there hasn't

Re: [JSF 1.2] question

2006-06-06 Thread Matthias Wessendorf
Any reason for keeping [1] ? -Matthias [1] http://tinyurl.com/gjdxe On 6/5/06, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ah, thanks. Some are some issues also the reasons, why UIComponent is not an interface? -Matthias On 6/5/06, Adam Winer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Backwards

Re: [JSF 1.2] question

2006-06-06 Thread Matthias Wessendorf
CONVERTER_ID = javax.faces.DoubleTime On 6/6/06, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Any reason for keeping [1] ? -Matthias [1] http://tinyurl.com/gjdxe On 6/5/06, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ah, thanks. Some are some issues also the reasons, why UIComponent is

Re: [JSF 1.2] question

2006-06-06 Thread Craig McClanahan
On 6/6/06, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: CONVERTER_ID =javax.faces.DoubleTimeLooks like a spec bug due to a cut-n-paste error in the RI's API classes. If so, the correct thing to do would be to report feedback via the website on the spec cover (

Re: [JSF 1.2] question

2006-06-06 Thread Matthias Wessendorf
Created a ticket [1] btw. there was version 2.0 already mentioned. Any kickoff for JSF 2.0 ideas yet? -Matthias [1] https://javaserverfaces-spec-public.dev.java.net/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=176 On 6/6/06, Craig McClanahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 6/6/06, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL

Re: [JSF 1.2] question

2006-06-06 Thread Craig McClanahan
On 6/6/06, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Created a ticket [1]btw. there was version 2.0 already mentioned. Any kickoff for JSF 2.0 ideas yet?Ideas are being gathered (you can submit your favorites via the same issue tracking system), but there hasn't been a formal roadmap for

Re: [JSF 1.2] question

2006-06-06 Thread Matthias Wessendorf
tracking system), but there hasn't been a formal roadmap for JSF.next so is JSF.next the project name for it? that happens, it would be very much appropriate that Apache have a representative on the EG, and it would seem to make the most sense that this rep be someone from the MyFaces

[JSF 1.2] question

2006-06-05 Thread Matthias Wessendorf
Hi, does anybody know why the methods added to ViewHandler or ExternalContext in 1.2 are not abstract, like their *old* JSF 1.1 counterparts ? -Matthias -- Matthias Wessendorf Aechterhoek 18 48282 Emsdetten blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com

Re: [JSF 1.2] question

2006-06-05 Thread Adam Winer
Backwards compatibility - at least of a sort; you won't get AbstractMethodErrors when using 1.1-compiled subclasses. -- Adam On 6/5/06, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, does anybody know why the methods added to ViewHandler or ExternalContext in 1.2 are not abstract, like

Re: [JSF 1.2] question

2006-06-05 Thread Matthias Wessendorf
Ah, thanks. Some are some issues also the reasons, why UIComponent is not an interface? -Matthias On 6/5/06, Adam Winer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Backwards compatibility - at least of a sort; you won't get AbstractMethodErrors when using 1.1-compiled subclasses. -- Adam On 6/5/06, Matthias