+1 for the first one as well, since I already have a few of such issues.
Some of them can be solved on 2.0 level but not exposed (like our
working queue handling) some of them really need a spec change (like the
semi broken viewstate handling on protocol level)
Werner
Am 09.07.10 03:29,
OK, great :)
I just created the version 2.1.0 in the JIRA and already changed it on some
issues. If you find any issues in the JIRA which are valid JSF 2.1 issues,
please change the affected version to 2.1.0 on them.
Thanks!
Jakob
2010/7/9 Werner Punz werner.p...@gmail.com
+1 for the first
FYI: query to get 2.1.0 issues:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=truepid=10600version=12315190
Regards,
Jakob
2010/7/9 Jakob Korherr jakob.korh...@gmail.com
OK, great :)
I just created the version 2.1.0 in the JIRA and already changed it on some
issues. If
Hi guys,
Since there are currently some issues in the JIRA, which we can't fix now,
because they require a spec behavior change, but which should be fixed for
JSF 2.1, I was thinking of some way to mark them. There are two options:
1) Simply create a 2.1.0 version and change the Affects
+1 on the first option.
/JK
2010/7/8 Jakob Korherr jakob.korh...@gmail.com
Hi guys,
Since there are currently some issues in the JIRA, which we can't fix now,
because they require a spec behavior change, but which should be fixed for
JSF 2.1, I was thinking of some way to mark them. There
+1 for #1
regards,
gerhard
http://www.irian.at
Your JSF powerhouse -
JSF Consulting, Development and
Courses in English and German
Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
2010/7/8 Jan-Kees van Andel jankeesvanan...@gmail.com
+1 on the first option.
/JK
2010/7/8 Jakob Korherr
+1 for the first option.
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 1:39 PM, Gerhard Petracek gerhard.petra...@gmail.com
wrote:
+1 for #1
regards,
gerhard
http://www.irian.at
Your JSF powerhouse -
JSF Consulting, Development and
Courses in English and German
Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
+1 for #1.
On 7/8/2010 9:29 PM, Hazem Saleh wrote:
+1 for the first option.
+1 on option #1
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 7:01 PM, Michael Concini mconc...@gmail.com wrote:
+1 for #1.
On 7/8/2010 9:29 PM, Hazem Saleh wrote:
+1 for the first option.
--
Matthias Wessendorf
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf