Hi all,
I want to get rid of that 1.2 vs. 2.0 discussion blocker. Therefore I
will try to summarize all of the arguments and collect the pros and
cons once more. The goal is to find a compromise that is acceptable
for all of us. I will try to be as impartial as possible. You will see
I'm no
has
its lobby).
regards
Alexander
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Manfred Geiler
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 10:32 AM
To: MyFaces Development
Subject: [PROPOSAL] MyFaces JSR-252 Version Number (was MyFaces 2.0.0)
Hi all,
I want to get rid
Hi Manfred!
For me, all in your post result in a simple +1 from my side ;-)
A20.5. not solved, but if there is a JSF fix we must join all our
influence and convice Ed to call it JSF-1.3 ;-)
This only happens if there is a minor release of the spec do we
have seen something in the past?
Honestly, I think this is the best compromise we can reach. Nice job,
+1
Bruno
On 25/05/07, Werner Punz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1 to your propsal of the numbering scheme...
The Blackdown people use something similar for their JDK Implementations.
Manfred Geiler schrieb:
Hi all,
I want
+1 to your propsal of the numbering scheme...
The Blackdown people use something similar for their JDK Implementations.
Manfred Geiler schrieb:
Hi all,
I want to get rid of that 1.2 vs. 2.0 discussion blocker. Therefore I
will try to summarize all of the arguments and collect the pros and
it is safe to talk about that one as JSR-314, just in case...
Bruno
regards
Alexander
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Manfred Geiler
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 10:32 AM
To: MyFaces Development
Subject: [PROPOSAL] MyFaces JSR-252 Version
: Friday, May 25, 2007 10:32 AM
To: MyFaces Development
Subject: [PROPOSAL] MyFaces JSR-252 Version Number (was MyFaces 2.0.0)
Hi all,
I want to get rid of that 1.2 vs. 2.0 discussion blocker. Therefore I
will try to summarize all of the arguments and collect the pros and
cons once more
Manfred,
Thank you for this! Below are a couple questions.
Manfred Geiler wrote:
Hi all,
snip
Ok, here is my compromise proposal, which I hope everyone can live with:
C1. We switch MyFaces Core to a 4 digit version numbering: 1.2.0.0 which
means
see inline
On 5/25/07, Paul Spencer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Manfred,
Thank you for this! Below are a couple questions.
Manfred Geiler wrote:
Hi all,
snip
Ok, here is my compromise proposal, which I hope everyone can live with:
C1. We switch MyFaces Core to a 4 digit version numbering:
+1
On 5/25/07, Zubin Wadia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1, great mediation Manfred.
Cheers,
Zubin.
On 5/25/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
I want to get rid of that 1.2 vs. 2.0 discussion blocker. Therefore I
will try to summarize all of the arguments and collect the
Manfred,
+1 for the Proposal.
Once the proposal is accepted, please post a proposal for the next version
number
for each affected sub project. I would posts one now for Tomahawk, but I do not
want to distract anyone.
Paul Spencer
Manfred Geiler wrote:
see inline
On 5/25/07, Paul Spencer
+1, great mediation Manfred.
Cheers,
Zubin.
On 5/25/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
I want to get rid of that 1.2 vs. 2.0 discussion blocker. Therefore I
will try to summarize all of the arguments and collect the pros and
cons once more. The goal is to find a compromise
+1 to MyFaces Core 1.2.x.y for the JSF 1.2 implementation name.
On 5/25/07, Manfred Geiler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
I want to get rid of that 1.2 vs. 2.0 discussion blocker. Therefore I
will try to summarize all of the arguments and collect the pros and
cons once more. The goal is to
On May 25, 2007, at 4:31 AM, Manfred Geiler wrote:
Arguments pro 2.x.y:
A20.1. Tomcat does the same. They do not align there container
versions to the spec and nobody complains.
This is an excellent proposal and clearly takes all the factors we
have discussed into account. I would have no
14 matches
Mail list logo
