myfaces-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Scott O'Bryan <darkar...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [PORTAL] JSR-301 Portlet Bridge uploaded
Date Fri, 17 Aug 2007 16:02:36 GMT
Aarg..  I thought I forgot something.  Let me fix that and upload the zip.

Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
> Hey Scott,
>
> did a quick look.
> POMs and API .java class have to contain the Apache 2.0 license as well.
>
> Greetings,
> Matthias
>
> PS: build runs .... :-)
>
> On 8/17/07, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew@apache.org> wrote:
>   
>> there was no real tomahawk bridge.
>> that stuff is part of myfaces 1.1 (the core impl)
>>
>> the difference here is that 301 specifies a way, how a JSF 1.2
>> application should work inside a portal.
>>
>> for jsf 1.1 there was "just" a note like "JSF 1.1 should run in a
>> portlet..." (very simplified statement)
>>
>> So, no not a replacement, "just" an IMPL of the java SPEC ;-)
>>
>> On 8/17/07, Alexander Wallace <aw@rwmotloc.com> wrote:
>>     
>>> Does this bridge replace Tomahawk bridge?
>>>
>>> On Aug 17, 2007, at 10:39 AM, Scott O'Bryan wrote:
>>>
>>>       
>>>> Sounds good to me.  Should we open up a discussion though on
>>>> "where" this should be committed so that we can hit the ground
>>>> running once the paperwork is listed?
>>>>
>>>> Scott
>>>>
>>>> Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
>>>>         
>>>>> On 8/17/07, Scott O'Bryan <darkarena@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>>>> Hey everyone.  After tearing though the bureaucracy much slower
>>>>>> then I
>>>>>> would have liked, I uploaded the code to  MYFACES-1664 for the
>>>>>> JSR-301
>>>>>> Portlet Bridge.  This code should comply with the latest public
>>>>>> draft of
>>>>>> the JSR-301 specification and, once we figure out where to put
>>>>>> this and
>>>>>> get it made available in svn, I'd like to see people get their
>>>>>> hands on
>>>>>> it and try it out.  It is going to change some things (for the
>>>>>> better I
>>>>>> hope), but if there are any unresolvable issues with it, my hope
>>>>>> is that
>>>>>> we can get those concerns voiced so that we can incorporate them
>>>>>> into
>>>>>> the final draft.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That said, what are our next steps?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>>> we have to wait with the commit, until that the paperworks (Schedule
>>>>> B) is listed here:
>>>>> http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html
>>>>>
>>>>> -M
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>>>> Scott
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>>         
>>>       
>> --
>> Matthias Wessendorf
>>
>> further stuff:
>> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
>> mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
>>
>>     
>
>
>   


Mime
View raw message