myfaces-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jacob Hookom <ja...@hookom.net>
Subject Re: Multiple SVN Branches (Was --> Re: JSF 1.2)
Date Fri, 26 May 2006 04:14:40 GMT
I should mention that TC 6 Jasper was implemented with the unified EL to 
a point where the RI 1.2 demos ran fine and development of .tag files 
with the new EL also worked with JSF 1.2



Stan Silvert wrote:
> Most of what I did relies on Unified EL.  In fact, the EL integration is
> completely done except that the components haven't been converted to use
> it.  The components still work though because I also did all the
> backward-compatibility stuff for 1.1 style components.  
>
> Almost all of the new API's rely on Unified EL at least indirectly.  
>
> I see nothing to be gained by having a TC 5 / 1.2 branch.  I really
> don't see what the point would be.  Maybe I missed something earlier in
> the thread.
>
> I also don't understand why you need a TC 6 release to do 1.2
> development.  I've been working with JSF 1.2 stuff on TC 6 for a few
> months now.  It works fine for development purposes.
>
> That being said, I'm fine with whatever you guys decide.  Just let me
> know when/if you want the code.
>
> Stan Silvert
> JBoss, Inc.
> ssilvert@jboss.com
> callto://stansilvert
>
>   
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Sean Schofield [mailto:sean.schofield@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 7:02 PM
>> To: MyFaces Development; mmarinschek@apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Multiple SVN Branches (Was --> Re: JSF 1.2)
>>
>> Maybe we should check in Stan's work and just remove the TC 6 stuff.
>> I can't imagine he did a lot with the EL or content interweaving but
>> maybe I am wrong.  I'm ok with checking in his stuff now and letting
>> you get started to strip away the TC 6 stuff.
>>
>> Sean
>>
>> On 5/25/06, Martin Marinschek <martin.marinschek@gmail.com> wrote:
>>     
>>> Ok, so that's what we ought to do - releasing a MILESTONE release
>>> shouldn't be a problem.
>>>
>>> regards,
>>>
>>> Martin
>>>
>>> On 5/25/06, Craig McClanahan <craigmcc@apache.org> wrote:
>>>       
>>>>
>>>> On 5/25/06, Sean Schofield <sean.schofield@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>         
>>>>>> You'd better read the spec license again   A package that
>>>>>>             
>> implements
>>     
>>>> some of
>>>>         
>>>>>> the "javax.*" APIs from a spec needs to implement *all* of
>>>>>>             
> them.
>   
>>>>> @ Craig: Is this different the the 1.1 spec license?  I seem to
>>>>>           
>> recall
>>     
>>>>> a compromise solution where we released as "milestone."  Is that
>>>>>           
> no
>   
>>>>> longer an option?
>>>>>           
>>>> No, it's not different.  Milestone/EA/Alpha/Beta/etc. are fine (as
>>>>         
>> would be
>>     
>>>> nightly builds that are not formally a release).  Final/GA
>>>>         
> releases
>   
>> are not
>>     
>>>> fine.
>>>>
>>>> Craig
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> --
>>>
>>> http://www.irian.at
>>>
>>> Your JSF powerhouse -
>>> JSF Consulting, Development and
>>> Courses in English and German
>>>
>>> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
>>>
>>>       
>
>   


-- 
--------------------------
Sent from my FrankenBerry Wireless Handheld


Mime
View raw message