myfaces-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Matthias Wessendorf" <mat...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Commons API JSF 1.2 only
Date Wed, 05 Dec 2007 22:52:22 GMT
> All myfaces commons trunks -> 1.2
> 1.1 branch that is only maintained by those willing to perform back ports

wasn't that what I said w/ compromise?
use JSF 1.2 as default, and when sb. cares, let
him port it back on a branch or what not;

-M

>
> -Andrew
>
>
> On Dec 5, 2007 3:43 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew@apache.org> wrote:
> > I think that is a good compromise;
> > by that we also can "filter" later on the interesting parts for 1.1
> > (which can be done, by those, that actually care on 1.1)
> >
> > which is easier... since the most do care on 1.2 (since it is a NEWER api)
> >
> > -M
> >
> >
> > On Dec 5, 2007 11:39 PM, Bernd Bohmann <bernd.bohmann@atanion.com> wrote:
> > > Ok,
> > >
> > > I'm fine if we are starting with 1.2 only. We can look for 1.1
> > > interesting parts later.
> > > But I don't like a commons jsf 1.2 only vote.
> > >
> > > Bernd
> > >
> > > Scott O'Bryan schrieb:
> > >
> > > > Bernd,
> > > >
> > > > I do.  :)  Common's multi-part form handling (file uploads) will need
to
> > > > work in both a Portal and Servlet environment before something like
> > > > Trinidad will be able to use it.  For this, I'm proposing that such a
> > > > handler use the Configurator sub-system.  The configurator Subsystem
> > > > must override the ExternalContext which has changed a great deal between
> > > > 1.1 and 1.2.  Having done multi-part form handling in Trinidad for both
> > > > frameworks, I can tell you that a generic implementation of this is
> > > > quite a bit different in both branches (largely because of the
> > > > setRequest() and setResponse() methods in 1.2).
> > > >
> > > > Currently, Tobago, Trinidad 1.1 and Tomohawk all support multi-part form
> > > > handing for servlets.  I don't see any reason why we should change these
> > > > implementations.
> > > >
> > > > Scott
> > > >
> > > > Bernd Bohmann wrote:
> > > >> -1
> > > >>
> > > >> I don't see any reason why a commons fileupload should not support
1.1
> > > >>
> > > >> Can someone define what commons API means?
> > > >>
> > > >> Is this just a subproject of commons like commons validator or commons
> > > >> converter?
> > > >>
> > > >> Scott O'Bryan schrieb:
> > > >>
> > > >>> +1
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Mario Ivankovits wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> +1
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> Lets make the myfaces commons JSF API an official vote
so we can have
> > > >>>>> a fixed time frame on this decision
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> +1 [ ] -- make JSF 1.2 the minimum requirement for the
new myfaces
> > > >>>>> commons project
> > > >>>>> +0 [ ] -- you don't mind supporting a 1.1 trunk in addition
to a 1.2
> > > >>>>> trunk
> > > >>>>> -1 [ ] -- you feel that 1.1 should be required and why
you feel that
> > > >>>>> it is needed
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> My vote: +1
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> -Andrew
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Matthias Wessendorf
> >
> > further stuff:
> > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> > sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> > mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
> >
>



-- 
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