Part of the release notes will be what version of facelets that particular tomahawk release is compatible with. We will probably just try to keep in sync with the most current stable facelets release. You could always rebuild from SVN and switch in a prior (or custom) taglib xml file.
Plus if Adam is correct, it doesn't sound like it will be much of an issue. Sean On 5/15/06, Adam Winer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Andrew, I don't see any changes coming in the tag handler API or XML format, and just asked Jacob, who agrees. -- Adam On 5/15/06, Andrew Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What if there is a need for a different JAR for different facelets versions? > For example, if Jacob changed the tag handler API in Facelets 1.2, then the > code would be different for Facelets 1.1 and 1.2. This is the big reason I > see for having the Jars separate. > > -Andrew > > > On 5/15/06, Sean Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I don't see these as significant advantages to making it a separate > > > JAR. None of these should be marked as required dependencies for > > > standard tomahawk use - they should all be marked as "provided" > > > scope, which avoids the issue. > > > > I agreee. Why not include the facelets config file in the META-INF of > > the regular old tomahawk.jar? It certainly doesn't hurt anyone not > > using facelets and it would be a major incentive to use MyFaces > > components if they were able to be used with facelets out of the box. > > > > > -- Adam > > > > Sean > > > >
