myfaces-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petra...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] [Core] window-id for myfaces-core 2.0.x and 2.1.x
Date Tue, 31 Jul 2012 18:10:14 GMT
hi leo,

no - we don't need a compromise just for testing this feature. it's really
an important feature also for v2.0.x and v2.1.x!
i explained all the advantages (for users of myfaces-core v2.0.x and v2.1.x
and also tomee) in the first mail of this thread - please read it again.

if you have objections concerning the initial stability of the myfaces
specific api, it's also fine to start with a prototype in a separated
branch.

regards,
gerhard

http://www.irian.at

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

Professional Support for Apache MyFaces



2012/7/31 Leonardo Uribe <lu4242@gmail.com>

> Hi Gerhard
>
> In my opinion, start with 2.1.x is the wrong way to do it. Sounds
> better to create a branch, do the necessary changes (including modify
> javax.faces.* classes to match the spec draft, but only the necessary
> for windowId feature), and then if that is not enough do the backport.
>
> The whole point of this is provide "something" to try windowId feature
> and check if everything is correct before JSF 2.2 is out, right?. In
> that sense, I think do a milestone release is a good compromise. When
> JSF 2.2 is out, we can do an official release and applications using
> these artifacts will just jump to 2.2.
>
> In my opinion, there are still many things to make clear before try a
> backport. How the implementation should behave? there are many ways to
> do it and each one with different trade-offs.
>
> I'm still worried about create some classes in MyFaces, tell people to
> use them and later change them without warning just because something
> needs to be fixed. With a milestone release, the message is clear:
> "... this is just JSF 2.1 + windowId proposal for JSF 2.2, so the
> implementation here is not final and can change at any moment ...".
>
> ... Easy to do, hard to correct ...
>
> regards,
>
> Leonardo Uribe
>
> 2012/7/31 Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petracek@gmail.com>:
> > hi leo,
> >
> > i'm not sure if we really need such releases.
> > if it is easier for you to start with the official api of v2.2 and to
> > backport it afterwards, it's imo also ok to create a branch for it.
> > in this case we might have to drop (or refactor) this branch later on,
> > because the final ClientWindow implementation for v2.2 should just
> delegate
> > to the myfaces specific api (if possible) to allow an easier sync.
> >
> > regards,
> > gerhard
> >
> > http://www.irian.at
> >
> > Your JSF/JavaEE powerhouse -
> > JavaEE Consulting, Development and
> > Courses in English and German
> >
> > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
> >
> >
> >
> > 2012/7/31 Leonardo Uribe <lu4242@gmail.com>
> >>
> >> Hi
> >>
> >> There is an alternative to do it for 2.0.x / 2.1.x . We can create a
> >> temporal 2.2.x branch that will only contain JSF 2.1 + JSF 2.2
> >> windowId API and then we do milestones releases, which does not
> >> require to be official (no TCK), with some additional identifier. For
> >> example myfaces-bundle-2.2.0-mr-1w.jar or something like that.
> >>
> >> In this way, we can just implement the proposal we have for JSF 2.2,
> >> and people could try it, but we avoid the overhead involved in
> >> implement myfaces specific hacks for 2.1. Later, we can backport it to
> >> JSF 2.1(optional), but only after we have a clear idea about how the
> >> implementation should work, and how we can backport it. Does that
> >> sounds reasonable?
> >>
> >> regards,
> >>
> >> Leonardo Uribe
> >>
> >> 2012/7/23 Gerhard Petracek <gerhard.petracek@gmail.com>:
> >> > hi @ all,
> >> >
> >> > if there are no objections, i'll create a jira ticket for it tomorrow.
> >> >
> >> > regards,
> >> > gerhard
> >> >
> >> > http://www.irian.at
> >> >
> >> > Your JSF/JavaEE powerhouse -
> >> > JavaEE Consulting, Development and
> >> > Courses in English and German
> >> >
> >> > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > 2012/7/20 David Blevins <david.blevins@gmail.com>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Jul 19, 2012, at 2:49 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
> >> >> > The internal API will be 1:1 sync with the proposed javax.faces
> API -
> >> >> > we
> >> >> > are just not allowed to do it directly in javax.faces before it's
> >> >> > official.
> >> >>
> >> >> Sounds great.  Only reason I ask was the TCK gets cranky when you
> >> >> change
> >> >> the API signatures.  But this proposed approach sounds like a nice
> >> >> compromise.
> >> >>
> >> >> Very workable.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> -David
> >> >>
> >> >
> >
> >
>

Mime
View raw message