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: [trinidad] cleanup
Date Wed, 05 Oct 2011 14:26:26 GMT
Yes.  Cleaning up impl would be an excellent first step..

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 5, 2011, at 7:50 AM, Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petracek@gmail.com>
wrote:

@max: basically +1

as mentioned before most of the stuff is in the impl. module. so we can even
start with the impl. module and announce the cleanup of the api in parallel
-> other libs have enough time to get rid of the old api calls,
implementations,... (or even better: they could join the effort)

regards,
gerhard

http://www.irian.at

Your JSF powerhouse -
JSF Consulting, Development and
Courses in English and German

Professional Support for Apache MyFaces



2011/10/5 Max Starets <max.starets@oracle.com>

> **
> I think we that for 2.0.x versions of Trinidad, should definitely remove
> stuff that cannot be possibly used/invoked with JSF 2.0. I would not remove
> all deprecated APIs at once though. Perhaps we could could do it 'in waves '
> - start with APIs that were decprected for the longest time, announce that
> they are going to be removed in the next release and give our users
> considerable time to check their code.
>
> Max
>
>
> On 10/5/2011 9:22 AM, Scott O'Bryan wrote:
>
> The "backward compatibility" library might be an interesting idea.  It just
> won't always be possible if an existing class has deprecated methods on it.
> I don't know how many Deprecated classes we have.
>
> Scott
>
> On 10/05/2011 07:07 AM, Gerhard Petracek wrote:
>
> basically i agree with mark. at some point we have to get rid of the old
> stuff (esp. >pre< jsf stuff).
> at least we can move the deprecated parts to the mentioned backward
> compatibility module (if needed).
> in combination with shade there shouldn't be a problem at all and it forces
> us to cleanup and re-visit those old parts.
>
>  @scott:
> for sure it has to be a community decision.
>
>  regards,
> gerhard
>
> http://www.irian.at
>
> Your JSF powerhouse -
> JSF Consulting, Development and
> Courses in English and German
>
> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
>
>
>
> 2011/10/5 Mark Struberg <struberg@yahoo.de>
>
>> My intention is not to break something, and I was ONLY talking about the
>> JSF-2 version of Trinidad.
>> If there is code which just makes no sense at all in JSF-2, then we should
>> in MY opinion kill this code.
>> If it doesn't make sense for Trinidad, then it is highly likely that it
>> also don't make sense for ADF anymore, right?
>>
>> IF some parts are still needed by some known 3rd party libs, then those
>> parts can of course remain.
>>
>>
>> But at the end of the day maintaining Trinidad will become more and more
>> problematic if we don't get rid of long time obsolete stuff.
>>
>> Again: only my personal opinion and experience.
>>
>> I assume that ADF also has a JSF-1 and a separate JSF-2 branch. All the
>> JSF-1 stuff would of course remain the way it is currently!
>>
>>
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: Scott O'Bryan <darkarena@gmail.com>
>>  > To: dev@myfaces.apache.org
>> > Cc:
>> > Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2011 2:20 PM
>> > Subject: Re: [trinidad] cleanup
>> >
>> > We could, yes.  But we would force people to migrate apps which, perhaps
>> > is not a bad thing but traditionally we've taken a full vote before
>> > changing/removing API's in Trinidad because, doing so, incurs additional
>> > cost on the other frameworks which are using Trinidad as a foundation.
>> >
>> > Any company which provides Trinidad as a foundation for other framework
>> > code (like Oracle's ADFFaces) benefits from NOT breaking users of the
>> > framework every release and, frankly, I see a lot of value in keeping
>> > them around 'if possible'.
>> >
>> > Like I say, I'm not opposed to it, but I suppose I take more of a Java
>> > ZEN approach to deprecation of API's.
>> >
>> > Scott
>> >
>> > On 10/05/2011 05:41 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
>> >>  I'm not sure if I understand this correctly.
>> >>
>> >>  Trinidad-2 is for JSF-2 upwards exclusively, isn't?
>> >>
>> >>  If so, then we can easily get rid of all the old dust which just
>> confuses
>> > people.
>> >>
>> >>  Furthermore there seems to be a few compat problems with JSF-2 f:ajax
>> which
>> > can only be resolved by carefully cleaning those areas up.
>> >>  Just leave behind the old stuff.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>  LieGrue,
>> >>  strub
>> >>
>> >>>  ________________________________
>> >>>  From: Scott O'Bryan<darkarena@gmail.com>
>> >>>  To: MyFaces Development<dev@myfaces.apache.org>
>> >>>  Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2011 1:06 PM
>> >>>  Subject: Re: [trinidad] cleanup
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>  Well just because something is depth aged doesn't mean we can
>> > remove it.  It just means that an alternate means is suggested or
>> something may
>> > not work exactly as expected if used.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>  A Prime example is ExternalContextUtils.  That guy has been around
>> > since JSF 1.1.  It contains lots of functionality that wasn't present in
>> > later versions of JSF, but now is.  Use of the native objects should be
>> > encouraged, but there is also something to be said about older code
>> being able
>> > to migrate easier to a later release.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>  Now I DO agree with removing the JSDoc and possibly the deprecations
>> in
>> > the impl, but I think it's important to keep any deprecations in the API
>> for
>> > backward compatibility.
>> >>>
>> >>>  Sent from my iPhone
>> >>>
>> >>>  On Oct 5, 2011, at 4:32 AM, Gerhard
>> > Petracek<gerhard.petracek@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>  both - there are just two possibilities: those parts are really
>> > deprecated and we remove them (and refactor the rest) or we can't remove
>> > them and the information (annotation and/or javadoc) isn't correct.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>  regards,
>> >>>>  gerhard
>> >>>>  http://www.irian.at
>> >>>>
>> >>>>  Your JSF powerhouse -
>> >>>>  JSF Consulting, Development and
>> >>>>  Courses in English and German
>> >>>>
>> >>>>  Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>  2011/10/5 Scott O'Bryan<darkarena@gmail.com>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>  Gerhard, by deprivation hints, I'm assuming you mean the
>> > javadoc deprecations and not the annotations, right?
>> >>>>>  Sent from my iPhone
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>  On Oct 5, 2011, at 3:09 AM, Gerhard
>> > Petracek<gerhard.petracek@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>  hi @ all,
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>  there are still over 400 deprecations (via @Deprecated)
and
>> > nearly 400 via javadoc (not all of them overlap).
>> >>>>>>  a lot of them are in for a long time and some of them were
>> > deprecated even before [1].
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>  however, some parts are still used and can't be
>> > removed.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>  imo we should do a cleanup or remove the deprecation hints.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>  regards,
>> >>>>>>  gerhard
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>  [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-1229
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>  http://www.irian.at
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>  Your JSF powerhouse -
>> >>>>>>  JSF Consulting, Development and
>> >>>>>>  Courses in English and German
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>  Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>
>> >
>>
>
>
>

Mime
View raw message