myfaces-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Bruno Aranda" <brunoara...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: MyFaces 2.0.0 (was Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?)
Date Tue, 22 May 2007 11:19:19 GMT
Hi, I can imagine a free evolution of myfaces-impl, but this would
come at a cost of incompatibility with the RI. If we add new
signatures and other artifacts depend on those signatures, that
artifact is depending in the implementation and cannot be used with
other implementations (e.g. RI). Is this really what we want? This is
why I think that the impl should not grow and should be restricted to
be *just* an implementation of the api.

My 2 pences,

Bruno

On 22/05/07, Martin Marinschek <martin.marinschek@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've always been of Manfred's opinion - it would be better to decouple
> spec version numbers from implementation version numbers, so I'm...
>
> +1 for MyFaces-Impl 2.0
>
> if we don't do that, we force ourselves into an artifical corset in
> which we cannot move - we can only increment minor version numbers,
> and that means that almost no changes have been committed (users would
> expect only bug-fixes), whereas the implementation could grow in
> functionality significantly independent from the spec.
>
> MyFaces API can stay with a version number of 1.2, though
>
> regards,
>
> Martin
>
> On 5/21/07, Zubin Wadia <zwadia@gmail.com> wrote:
> > It is a discussion about the core - I am only trying to establish WHY there
> > are two schools of thought on this - refer to Manfred's post to this thread
> > on May 18th.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Z.
> >
> >
> >  On 5/21/07, Mike Kienenberger <mkienenb@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I thought we were simply discussing MyFaces Core.
> > >
> > > Let me clarify my vote:
> > >
> > > +1  1.2 MyFaces Core for JSF 1.2.
> > > -1  2.0 MyFaces Core for JSF 1.2.
> > >
> > > Don't care for Tomahawk/Trinidad/Tobago.   These are no longer
> > > tightly-coupled to a specific MyFaces core release, and should use
> > > whatever versions make the most sense.   This is already true for
> > > "shared", Trinidad, and Tobago.   It's going to happen anyway for
> > > Tomahawk once Myfaces 1.2 becomes trunk since Myfaces 1.1 releases are
> > > going to be few and far between once the majority of committers have
> > > switched to 1.2.
> > >
> > > While there have been matching releases for Tomahawk and Core up to
> > > this point, this has been due to the elimination of the previous
> > > coupling between Core and Tomahawk (a process that was more involved
> > > and took longer than anyone expected).
> > >
> > > For tomahawk, my "don't care" suggestion for versioning would be to
> > > use the same version as "shared" as long as that makes sense.
> > >
> > >
> > > On 5/21/07, Zubin Wadia <zwadia@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > There will always be an impedence mismatch here because MyFaces no
> > longer
> > > > represents the "Spec" but also various component projects. So I see
> > > > Manfred/Matze's point.
> > > >
> > > > This is why I have always advocated letting the Component initiatives
> > reign
> > > > alone in terms of their version order, release frequency and alignment
> > with
> > > > MyFaces and/or the Sun RI.
> > > >
> > > > And to think that we have the same exposure as the Tomcat community is
> > > > pushing it. We are nowhere near as big as them - yet.
> > > >
> > > > So while they can start naming their releases after varieties of
> > Hibiscus
> > > > flowers in the future - we can't.
> > > >
> > > > I'm still +1 on 1.2.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > >
> > > > Zubin.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 5/21/07, Bruno Aranda < brunoaranda@gmail.com > wrote:
> > > > > +1 for 1.2
> > > > > -1 for 2.0
> > > > >
> > > > > I do agree that using 2.0 may cause confusion, as unlike what happens
> > > > > with tomcat, there will be a future version 2.0 of the spec when
> > > > > myfaces 2.0 is there already. People, unaware of the versioning
> > > > > procedure of the myfaces project, will go and fetch this version
> > > > > thinking that it is the implementation of jsf 2.0.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > >
> > > > > Bruno
> > > > >
> > > > > On 21/05/07, Mike Kienenberger <mkienenb@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > +1 for 1.2.
> > > > > > -1 for 2.0.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I see no advantage to using major version numbers which differ
from
> > > > > > the spec.   I see the disadvantage of confusion.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Also, Manfred, you can have a -1 vote on this issue, but not
a veto.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Vetos only apply to code changes; they do not apply to procedural
> > > > > > issues such as software releases."
> > > > > > http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > > See also
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/200606.mbox/%3C4499A901.2090302@rowe-clan.net%3E
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 5/18/07, Manfred Geiler < manfred.geiler@gmail.com >
wrote:
> > > > > > > Hi folks,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Like Paul Spencer I'm also still
> > > > > > > +1
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > MyFaces 1.x.y --> JSF 1.1
> > > > > > > MyFaces 2.x.y --> JSF 1.2
> > > > > > > MyFaces 3.x.y --> JSF 2.0
> > > > > > > MyFaces 4.x.y --> JSF whatever comes next
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Here is my explanation for the "why":
> > > > > > > This one is similar to Tomcat version numbering and I do
not
> > remember
> > > > > > > anyone complaining about having a Tomcat 5.x that is an
> > implementaion
> > > > > > > of Servlet 2.4 and Tomcat 6.x being a Servlet 2.5 container.
> > > > > > > If there will be a "release vs. spec table" on the MyFaces
> > Homepage
> > > > > > > (like the one on http://tomcat.apache.org/) nobody will
ever be
> > > > > > > confused.
> > > > > > > The big advantage of having (only) the major number aligned
to the
> > > > > > > spec is the degree of freedom with minor (x) and fix (y)
number.
> > It is
> > > > > > > a well known and successful pattern to have this major.minor.fix
> > > > > > > version numbering scheme. With the 1.2.x versioning on
the other
> > hand,
> > > > > > > how could we ever differentiate between a minor release
(with new
> > > > > > > features and maybe slightly changed API for non-spec stuff)
and a
> > bug
> > > > > > > fix only release, if we may only count the last number
up?!
> > > > > > > Remember the Tomcat jump from 5.0.x to 5.5.x when they
did a
> > complete
> > > > > > > rewriting of the core stuff? How could they ever have expressed
> > that
> > > > > > > in version numbering if they had stolidly aligned their
tomcat
> > version
> > > > > > > to the servlet spec 2.4?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And do not forget:
> > > > > > > There is not only the implementation. There are 3 component
libs
> > under
> > > > > > > the MyFaces umbrella. And IMHO it is much more important
to align
> > all
> > > > > > > the myfaces stuff (compatible to each other) within one
major
> > number
> > > > > > > (2.x) than aligning all the stuff to the spec version.
For the
> > > > > > > component libs it is even more important to have that degree
of
> > > > > > > freedom for counting up a minor number whenever there is
an API
> > change
> > > > > > > and let the minor number unchanged for a bug fix release.
> > > > > > > MyFaces is getting more and more important. Also for tool
vendors.
> > So
> > > > > > > there will be more and more people and stuff out there
who/that
> > relies
> > > > > > > on our APIs. We should be oblivious to this responsibility.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sorry, but this is my binding
> > > > > > > -1 veto
> > > > > > > on having 1.2.x for our next spec 1.2 implementation as
long as
> > the
> > > > > > > only reason for having 1.2.x is a "cosmetic" reason only
to help
> > > > > > > people not being confused.
> > > > > > > Perhaps I missed something. If so, please explain to me
what is a
> > > > > > > proper technical or organizational or consequential reason
for
> > having
> > > > > > > 1.2.x as version for our next major (sic!) release.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > Manfred
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 5/18/07, Kito D. Mann <kmann@virtua.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > +1 for 1.2
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -1 for 2.0
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Using a " 2.0" version is going to confuse people.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > > > > Kito D. Mann - Author, JavaServer Faces in Action
> > > > > > > > http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ,
news, and info
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > * Sign up for the JSF Central newsletter!
> > > > > > > > http://oi.vresp.com/?fid=ac048d0e17 *
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > From: Grant Smith [mailto:work.grant@gmail.com]
> > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 1:16 PM
> > > > > > > > To: MyFaces Development
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: MyFaces 2.0.0 (was Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5
release
> > plans?)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > +1 for 1.2
> > > > > > > > -1 for 2.0
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 5/18/07, Mathias Brökelmann < mbroekelmann@googlemail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > +1 for 1.2
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 2007/5/18, Matthias Wessendorf < matzew@apache.org
>:
> > > > > > > > > So,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > any interest in making this to 2.0.0 ?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > -Matthias
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler <manfred.geiler@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > > > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > > > I am
> > > > > > > > > > +1 for Paul's suggestion:
> > > > > > > > > >    JSF 1.1 -> MyFaces 1.x
> > > > > > > > > >    JSF 1.2 -> MyFaces 2.x
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > and I am
> > > > > > > > > > +1 for JSF 2.0 (or JSF6 or whatever) ->
MyFaces 3.x
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --Manfred
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Mathias
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Grant Smith
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > http://www.irian.at
> > > > > > > Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting,
> > > > > > > Development and Courses in English and
> > > > > > > German
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
>
> http://www.irian.at
>
> Your JSF powerhouse -
> JSF Consulting, Development and
> Courses in English and German
>
> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
>

Mime
View raw message