myfaces-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Leonardo Uribe" <lu4...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] release for tomahawk 1.1.8
Date Wed, 12 Nov 2008 19:45:09 GMT
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 10:58 AM, Simon Kitching <skitching@apache.org>wrote:

> Leonardo Uribe schrieb:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I was running the needed tasks to get the 1.1.8 release of Apache
> > MyFaces Tomahawk out.
>
> Some initial test results:
>
> The tomahawk-1.1.8 jar works well with Facelets + Mojarra1.2.0_09 +
> java1.6.
>
> For the "staging repo" files deployed here:
>   http://people.apache.org/~lu4242/tomahawk118<http://people.apache.org/%7Elu4242/tomahawk118>
> <http://people.apache.org/%7Elu4242/tomahawk118>
> The binary jar license, manifest all look ok.
> Checksums all look ok.
>
> Oddly, the NOTICE file in the binary jarfile has nothing but the
> standard ASF claim. However the NOTICE in the source jar has a lot more
> credits in it. Looks like the NOTICE in the binary file could be wrong...
>
> And on both NOTICE files, it says "copyright 2004-2007" which should
> probably be updated.
>
>
That's strange but true, the notice should be the same for all. I'll take a
look.


>
> I'm not convinced about this change to the tomahawk pom:
>
>    <!-- Transitive dependency from commons-fileupload.
>    in 1.2 it was declared optional, but t:inputFileUpload
>    uses it indirectly, so it is necessary to include it
>    in our pom as runtime dependency  -->
>    <dependency>
>      <groupId>commons-io</groupId>
>      <artifactId>commons-io</artifactId>
>      <version>1.3.2</version>
>      <scope>runtime</scope>
>    </dependency>
>
> I think that this should indeed be an optional dependency; if someone
> wants to use Tomahawk but not use the t:inputFileUpload, then why should
> we force commons-io to be included in their classpath?
>

This change was introduced on 1.1.7, since from commons-io 1.2, this library
was marked as optional. From other point of view if someone does not want
commons-io to be included in their classpath he/she can exclude it. Good
question. In my opinion one or other it is the same (read it as +0 taking
the + to let it as is), but I prefer add to the classpath by default because
if not, every user of t:inputFileUpload must add this dependency by hand. It
could be good to have a community point of view about it.

regards

Leonardo Uribe


>
> Regards,
> Simon
>
> --
> -- Emails in "mixed" posting style will be ignored
> -- (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style)
>
>

Mime
View raw message