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 Sun, 16 Nov 2008 01:02:46 GMT
+1

On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 8:03 PM, Leonardo Uribe <lu4242@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi
>
> I have updated the artifacts, so the correct NOTICE is available.
>
> regards
>
> Leonardo Uribe
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 1:19 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew@apache.org>wrote:
>
>> +1 if the NOTICE is fixed
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 7:10 PM, Grant Smith <work.grant@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > +1 if the NOTICE is fixed.
>> >
>> > On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 12:10 AM, Simon Kitching <skitching@apache.org>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Leonardo Uribe schrieb:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 2:45 PM, Leonardo Uribe <lu4242@gmail.com
>> >> > <mailto:lu4242@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >     On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 10:58 AM, Simon Kitching
>> >> >     <skitching@apache.org <mailto: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>
>> >> >         <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.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > The problem was a override when unpacking shared tomahawk sources.
>> >> > This was fixed and updated the part of copyright to "copyright
>> >> > 2004-2008". The new artifacts will be generated after the question
>> >> > about optional dependency to commons is solved.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >         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.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > In my opinion, it is more easier use this for exclude commons-io
>> >> > dependency:
>> >> >
>> >> > <dependency>
>> >> >  <groupId>org.apache.myfaces.tomahawk</groupId>
>> >> >  <artifactId>tomahawk</artifactId>
>> >> >
>> >> >  <version>1.1.8</version>
>> >> >  <exclusions>
>> >> >    <exclusion>
>> >> >      <groupId>commons-io</groupId>
>> >> >      <artifactId>commons-io</artifactId>
>> >> >    </exclusion>
>> >> >  </exclusions>
>> >> >
>> >> > </dependency>
>> >> >
>> >> > In the other case, you need to find the proper version of commons-io
>> >> > (requires that users check tomahawk 1.1.8 pom) and add it as
>> >> > dependency if the user wants to use t:inputFileUpload.
>> >>
>> >> Ok, I'm convinced, particularly as this change was already in 1.1.7.So
>> >> no objection from me on the commons-io dependency.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Regards, Simon
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> -- Emails in "mixed" posting style will be ignored
>> >> -- (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style)
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Grant Smith
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Matthias Wessendorf
>>
>> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
>> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
>> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>>
>
>

Mime
View raw message