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 13:12:56 GMT
Ok, I see your points of having a more flexible versioning of
myfaces-impl (as Martin says, myfaces-api is not going to change ever,
a part from bug fixing). The only thing is that I think is more
natural to the standard user to know which jsf is implemented by
looking just at the version of the myfaces-impl, instead of having to
go through documentation, and the confusion can be greater when
myfaces-impl 2.0 and jsf-ri 2.0 are out there, both artifacts
implementing different versions of the spec. Of course, I know that
they are completely different things, but not everyone does.
Development-wise I am with you that myfaces-2.0 would be more
meaningful and flexible and I like it, but I think it is a matter of
compromise to avoid future confusion.

This is one of the issues with more controversy since a while!

Bruno

On 22/05/07, Paul Spencer <paulsp@apache.org> wrote:
> Bruno,
> Regardless if the version number, I would expect the community
> and PMC would prevent this from occurring.
>
> Paul Spencer
>
> Bruno Aranda wrote:
> > 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