myfaces-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Korhonen, Kalle" <kkorh...@cisco.com>
Subject RE: 1.09 and incubator status
Date Fri, 11 Mar 2005 17:42:00 GMT
Too much trouble. Let's just force everybody to use the new tree. If
somebody wants to use the old tree, he needs to compile himself or use
an old release. This is beta anyways and just came out from incubator.
We don't even have a release as a top level project yet. Wouldn't be the
first time I (and everybody else) need to change something to get the
app running with a newer MyFaces release/codebase, and I'm fine with it.

Kalle

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sean Schofield [mailto:sean.schofield@gmail.com] 
> Sent: Friday, March 11, 2005 5:44 AM
> To: matzew@apache.org; MyFaces Development
> Subject: Re: 1.09 and incubator status
> 
> Well if the ultimate plan is to have only one tree then it 
> makes it harder on more users to release with two trees 
> (unless we are going to keep tree2 with the name tree2.)  
> Otherwise tree2 users have to change their tags, etc. to tree 
> and the tree1 users need to make the interface changes.
> 
> What about a change in the current tree tag name to 
> treeLegacy and marking the component as deprecated?  So 
> current users can change their tags to <x:treeLegacy>.  That 
> way we can use <x:tree> for the newer tree and avoid the long 
> run confusion of what the heck is tree2?
>  What happened to tree1? etc.
> 
> sean
> 
> 
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 09:34:43 +0100, Matthias Wessendorf 
> <mailings@matthias-wessendorf.de> wrote:
> > Sean-
> > 
> > I think on long term you are right! One tree is better than 
> two. But 
> > for next release why not ship two trees?
> > 
> > There are still users that use the tree1 from Oliver and I think a 
> > "hard" cut will not be the best. So they could only change 
> their JARs 
> > but must not touch their JSPs, which is for me a plus.
> > 
> > On long term the best tree survived ;) (or a mix of both :-))
> > 
> > I haven't tryed tree1 yet and also I didn't follow the discussion 
> > about tree1 and tree2.
> > 
> > I only played with tree2 and I found that very usefull, but 
> I am +1 on 
> > holding tree1 in sources of MyFaces.
> > 
> > -Matthias
> > 
> > Sean Schofield wrote:
> > > Regarding the next release.  I suggest that we resolve any 
> > > outstanding
> > > tree2 issues so we can officially rename to tree and drop the 
> > > current one.  Its been several days since I responded to Oliver's 
> > > issues but I haven't heard anything back yet.
> > >
> > > I *really* think we should try to avoid having two tree 
> components.
> > > As Manfred has urged, I am working to resolve any 
> outstanding issues.
> > > As far as I am aware there are no features missing from tree2 now.
> > > There is just minor interface differences.
> > >
> > > Over the next day or so I will get treeTable into shape (which 
> > > depends on tree.)  That should be the last obstacle to 
> releasing the 
> > > new tree and removing the old.
> > >
> > > sean
> > >
> >
> 
> 

Mime
View raw message