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: MyFaces JSF Commons Project
Date Thu, 29 Nov 2007 18:33:41 GMT
Hazza.  It would also allow, possibly, a Tobago 1.2 line to move forward 
a bit easier..

Scott

Simon Kitching wrote:
> I certainly would be interested in contributing to a tomahawk-1.2 line, but not particularly
interested in a tomahawk-1.1 line.
>
> It is necessary to test stuff that is added/modified, but compiling then testing against
both versions of JSF will be painful. And writing components that work with the broken JSF1.1/JSP
combination can be painful.
>
> And it would be great to be able to use java1.5 features rather than be stuck with ugly
code just to be JSF1.1 compatible.
>
> When a new lib is being started, it does seem a good opportunity to make it 1.2-only
and leave the old cruft behind..
>
> ---- Matthias Wessendorf <matzew@apache.org> schrieb:
>   
>> to make it clear.
>>
>> I am not saying, that JSF 1.1 API is the ONLY ONE.
>>
>> Because this is a new project, a JSF 1.2 ONLY *would* make sense...
>> but... JSF 1.1 is still in use...
>>
>> Perhaps a second trunk for 1.1-based JSF is a good thing (tm)
>>
>> -Matthias
>>
>> On Nov 29, 2007 6:16 PM, Scott O'Bryan <darkarena@gmail.com> wrote:
>>     
>>> If 1.1 is a must then I don't see any way around having 2 trunks.  The
>>> API's between the two are not the same and when dealing with things like
>>> decorators (which JSF makes extensive use of), you need to implement
>>> every method on a class and ONLY those methods.
>>>
>>> I know that for Trinidad, although 90% of our code base is the same
>>> between JSF 1.1 and 1.2, approximately 10% is not.  And that 10% is what
>>> may well force us NOT to use the commons project for things like
>>> Multi-part form handling.  Plus, I would like to make some utilities
>>> that would allow renderkits to have an easier time of working with a
>>> JSR-301 portlet environment while allowing the portlet-bridge-api's and
>>> impls to be optional at runtime.  Something that could save a lot of
>>> time for render kit developers.  These will need to be 1.2 only.
>>>
>>> Scott
>>>
>>>
>>> Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
>>>       
>>>> On Nov 29, 2007 5:57 PM, Scott O'Bryan <darkarena@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> Hey everyone,
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm going to try to put together a proposal for some items it add to
the
>>>>> jsf commons fairly soon for your purusal.  First off, however, I'd like
>>>>> some technical information on this project as it may effect how the
>>>>> project is set up.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Which version of JSF will be the minimum for this project?  One of
my
>>>>> proposals involves needing an ExternalContextWrapper and the version
of
>>>>> JSF does make a difference.  I, personally, would like to see this based
>>>>> off 1.2 but if we need a 1.1 Faces Commons then I would recommend both
a
>>>>> 1.1 and a 1.2 branch.
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>> here we go;
>>>> my understanding is, that 1.1 is a must
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> 2. What is the minimum JDK we are going to use for this project.  My
>>>>> preference would be J2SE 5 for the build.  I could even live with making
>>>>> sure that code can be compiled with J2SE 5 in 1.4 compatibility mode
but
>>>>> I think we need to be able to support generics at the very least.  Of
>>>>> course if we're basing the commons project off of JSF 1.2, J2SE5 is a
>>>>> no-brainer.  :)
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>> JSF 1.1 => java1.4
>>>> JSF 1.2 => JDK5
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>       
>>
>> -- 
>> Matthias Wessendorf
>>
>> further stuff:
>> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
>> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
>> mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
>>     
>
>
>   


Mime
View raw message