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: [tomahawk] TomahawkFacesContextWrapper enabled (MYFACES-434 related)
Date Thu, 19 Jun 2008 23:56:44 GMT
:)  Cool.

That said, if we really need a place for backports, as part of the main 
trunk is not it IMO. Why?  Simply put, I think the 1.1 branch needs to 
be backports.  This means it will likely release on a different 
schedule.  When MyFaces 2.0 is available, I would expect the active 
development to happen on the 2.0 branch and backporting to 1.2..

So we have a few options here. 

1. We can either split them off at the TRUNK level like we did with 
Trinidad.  So we would have a trunk_11 and a trunk (holding the 1.2 
branch).  This makes the structure look like this:

trunk_1.1
  myfaces-commons-validators
  myfaces-commons-converters
  myfaces-commons-utils

trunk
  myfaces-commons-validators
  myfaces-commons-converters
  myfaces-commons-utils
 
When the community decides to embrace 2.0 we could then split off a 
trunk_1.2 folder.

2. We can put the backports in a branch and release off of that.  This 
is what we have now..

trunk
  myfaces-commons-validators
  myfaces-commons-converters
  myfaces-commons-utils

branches/jsf_11
  myfaces-commons-validators
  myfaces-commons-converters
  myfaces-commons-utils

So all backports go into the branch and then releases are done as needed 
from this branch..  Then when we move to 2.0 in trunk, we could add a 
branches/jsf_12.

3. We could do #2 for JSF_11 and then when JSF2.0 is added, we could 
simply do backports and fixes on an as-needed basis by branching from 
the tag, doing the fixes and backports, creating a new tag, and then 
removing the branches.

IMO #3 is cleanest, but if we need a lot of backports (and considering 
the feel of the community right now we'll need to) then perhaps #2 is 
the best compromise. 

As for the ExternalContextUtils, the Trinidad version had some other 
functions that I removed because 1.2 added support for them.  They were 
instrumental in handling file uploads because the idea behind the class 
was to prevent someone from having to cast.  I can add them back in and 
make a REALLY NICE 1.1 port if you want me to..  I've been meaning to 
add some convenience methods anyway.

Scott

Leonardo Uribe wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 5:56 PM, Scott O'Bryan <darkarena@gmail.com 
> <mailto:darkarena@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Right.  I know there has been some talk about creating a Tomahawk
>     JSF 1.2 branch.  I don't imagine that Tomahawk would use the
>     commons before (and if) this happens anyway.  Still, it would be
>     nice to make the migration as painless as possible.  :)
>
>
> There exists on tomahawk right now a modules called core12 and 
> sandbox/core12. I have made some work adding tomahawk converters and 
> validators to myfaces commons, to then reference
>  
>
>
>     Scott
>
>     Leonardo Uribe wrote:
>
>
>
>         On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 5:05 PM, Scott O'Bryan
>         <darkarena@gmail.com <mailto:darkarena@gmail.com>
>         <mailto:darkarena@gmail.com <mailto:darkarena@gmail.com>>> wrote:
>
>            Hey Leonardo,
>
>            Let me take a look at this tonight.  As you know, I hope to
>         have
>            the configurator package checked in soon into commons which
>         will
>            do this as well.  Right now it fits Trinidad's requirements
>         pretty
>            well but I'd like to see how it stacks up to Tomahawk's.  In
>            trinidad I plan to make their existing File object a
>         wrapper when
>            used with the commons configurator so that the fileupload
>            components can be interchangeable.  If I can address all of
>            Tomahawk's requirements as well, then you guys can do the
>         same..
>
>
>         Ok thanks!. Long time ago, I take ExternalContextUtils
>         (because myfaces-commons-utils is for java 1.5) and correct
>         some stuff to make it compatible with java 1.4 (on tomahawk is
>         on org.apache.myfaces.tomahawk.util). Definitively it is
>         necessary to do something with utils, because trinidad 1.0.x
>         is java 1.4, so this cannot use myfaces-commons utils.
>
>         regards
>
>         Leonardo Uribe
>
>
>            Scott
>
>
>            Leonardo Uribe wrote:
>
>                Hi
>
>                I have made some changes (enabled multipart content support
>                for TomahawkFacesContextWrapper) on tomahawk.
>
>                The objective is have a solution of MYFACES-434 Myfaces
>                Portlet Enhancement.
>
>                I have tested this and works fine for me, but the last time
>                there was some problems doing this, so better advice
>         dev list
>                about the changes.
>
>                I'm enhancing the documentation and adding fileupload
>         support
>                for portlets.
>
>                Suggestions are welcome
>
>                regards
>
>                Leonardo Uribe
>
>
>
>
>


Mime
View raw message