myfaces-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Manfred Geiler" <manfred.gei...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [JSF 1.2] question
Date Thu, 08 Jun 2006 20:02:42 GMT
On 6/7/06, Martin Marinschek <martin.marinschek@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, Jacob asked me if I'd like to join up. If I'd join, then as an
> individual.

Why not as the official ASF representative for JSF.next?
Of course there should be an official vote, but from my POV there
speaks nothing against you joining as a representative. And I have the
feeling that others think similarly.  ;-)


> I have some very specific ideas about JSF 2.0, though.

On more good reason for you becoming the official ASF/JSF.next guy  ;-)

Manfred


>
> regards,
>
> Martin
>
>
> On 6/7/06, Craig McClanahan <craigmcc@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 6/6/06, Matthias Wessendorf < matzew@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > > tracking system), but there hasn't been a formal roadmap for JSF.next
> > >
> > > so is JSF.next the project name for it?
> >
> >
> >
> > No, "JSF.next" is shorthand for "whatever version follows JSF 1.2 .
> Without a formal roadmap, there's no guarantee that the next version will
> actually be 2.0 (although that seems most likely to me).  But the real
> roadmap could, for example, contemplate an intermediate 1.3 version with
> more incremental changes before a next major version.
> >
> > As a historical note, the JSP version in J2EE 1.3 was numbered 1.2.  The
> original JSR for JCP to be included in J2EE 1.4 was proposed as 1.3, but the
> scope of the changes that the EG took on was so large that it became obvious
> that "JSP 2.0" was a much better identifier.  So, to avoid confusion, within
> Sun we've started talking about "xxx.next" as being the next version of
> "xxx", leaving the precise identiier to be determined later.
> >
> >
> >
> > > > that happens, it would be very much appropriate that Apache have a
> > > > representative on the EG, and it would seem to make the most sense
> that this
> > > > rep be someone from the MyFaces community.
> > >
> > > Manfred is already there. I think Martin is interested too.
> >
> >
> >
> > Cool. However, we'll want to figure out which particular person to
> nominate as the official Apache representative ... in general, JCP expert
> groups have only one representative from a particular organization (but that
> person can generally communicate to others within the organization to build
> consensus, and then represent the organization's view back to the EG).  It's
> also possible for additional folks to become EG members as individuals, at
> the discretion of the spec lead(s).
> >
> >
> > > -Matthias
> >
> >
> >
> > Craig
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > > In the interim before the formal announcement, talk to Ed Burns and
> Roger
> > > > Kitain, who were the co-spec leads for 1.2 (and AFAIK that's not
> changing
> > > > for future versions, but I'm not as intimately connected with the
> specs
> > > > world in my Creator architect role -- instead, I'm a customer :-)
> about the
> > > > kinds of areas you would like to see a 2.0 spec cover.
> > > >
> > > > > -Matthias
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Craig
> > > >
> > > > > [1]
> > > >
> https://javaserverfaces-spec-public.dev.java.net/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=176
> > > > >
> > > > > On 6/6/06, Craig McClanahan < craigmcc@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 6/6/06, Matthias Wessendorf < matzew@apache.org > wrote:
> > > > > > > CONVERTER_ID =  "javax.faces.DoubleTime "
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Looks like a spec bug due to a cut-n-paste error in the RI's
API
> > > > classes.
> > > > > > If so, the correct thing to do would be to report feedback via
the
> > > > website
> > > > > > on the spec cover (
> > > > > > https://javaserverfaces-spec-public.dev.java.net
> ) so
> > > > that
> > > > > > it can get addressed as an errata, or included in a maintenance
> version
> > > > of
> > > > > > the 1.2 spec.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Until then, though, I'd recommend you keep it ... this is the
kind
> of
> > > > > > mechanical detail that the API signature tests in the TCK will
> likely
> > > > flag
> > > > > > if it's missing.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Craig
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 6/6/06, Matthias Wessendorf < matzew@apache.org>
wrote:
> > > > > > > > Any reason for keeping [1] ?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -Matthias
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [1] http://tinyurl.com/gjdxe
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 6/5/06, Matthias Wessendorf < matzew@apache.org
> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Ah,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > thanks. Some are some issues also the reasons,
why
> UIComponent is
> > > > not
> > > > > > > > > an interface?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > -Matthias
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On 6/5/06, Adam Winer < awiner@gmail.com >
wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Backwards compatibility - at least of a
sort;  you won't
> get
> > > > > > > > > > AbstractMethodErrors when using 1.1-compiled
subclasses.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > -- Adam
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On 6/5/06, Matthias Wessendorf < matzew@apache.org>
wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > does anybody know why the methods added
to ViewHandler
> or
> > > > > > > > > > > ExternalContext in 1.2 are not abstract,
like their
> *old* JSF
> > > > 1.1
> > > > > > > > > > > counterparts ?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > -Matthias
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > Matthias Wessendorf
> > > > > > > > > > > Aechterhoek 18
> > > > > > > > > > > 48282 Emsdetten
> > > > > > > > > > > blog:
> http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
> > > > > > > > > > > mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > Matthias Wessendorf
> > > > > > > > > Aechterhoek 18
> > > > > > > > > 48282 Emsdetten
> > > > > > > > > blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
> > > > > > > > > mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Matthias Wessendorf
> > > > > > > > Aechterhoek 18
> > > > > > > > 48282 Emsdetten
> > > > > > > > blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
> > > > > > > > mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Matthias Wessendorf
> > > > > > > Aechterhoek 18
> > > > > > > 48282 Emsdetten
> > > > > > > blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
> > > > > > > mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Matthias Wessendorf
> > > > > Aechterhoek 18
> > > > > 48282 Emsdetten
> > > > > blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
> > > > > mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Matthias Wessendorf
> > > Aechterhoek 18
> > > 48282 Emsdetten
> > > blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
> > > mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

Mime
View raw message