shiro-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kalle Korhonen <kalle.o.korho...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: JSF Support
Date Mon, 01 Nov 2010 16:11:42 GMT
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 8:44 AM, Deluan Quintão <deluan@deluan.com> wrote:
> So back to my original question: You think it's better to remove the patch
> from JIRA, as it is already old, and put there a reference to
> the GitHub's repo I created to work with the project?

Completely up to you. Both Grails and Tynamo projects (I founded the
latter) host deep integration libraries with Shiro and we host some
support libraries as part of Shiro itself. You know, it's trade off:
if you want completely control and release whenever you like, then
host it yourself (e.g. github) but the bugs are yours as well; if you
want more visibility for your works, bring it over but prepare to
loose control of "your code" and assume more responsibilities if you
want to become a committer (just maintaining a JSF component library
is not going be enough to qualify), in return you'll get "free" bug
fixes and maintenance.

Kalle


> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 1:21 PM, Kalle Korhonen
> <kalle.o.korhonen@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 8:13 AM, Deluan Quintão <deluan@deluan.com> wrote:
>> > Yes, it already works with both 1.0.x and 1.1.x. So following your
>> > rationale, do you think it's a good idea to release it as a independent
>> > project (independent source and maven repos) while it's not officially
>> > adopt/endorsed  by Shiro project?
>>
>> Obviously you could release it completely independently and/or do
>> whatever you like with it, but no, I was only suggesting that it would
>> not be part of the Shiro's core build. The only practical implication
>> is that it has a separate version number from Shiro core libs. We
>> would still take it and maintain it - since we have a jsp tag library,
>> I don't see a problem with jsf as well.
>>
>> Kalle
>>
>>
>> > On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 12:40 PM, Kalle Korhonen
>> > <kalle.o.korhonen@gmail.com>wrote:
>> >
>> >> I'd expect the same jsf module would work both with 1.0.x and 1.1.x
>> >> Shiro - there were no drastic interface changes. Furthermore, I've
>> >> been proposing that the support libraries would become independently
>> >> releasable modules and so we could release the jsf module alone after
>> >> 1.1.0 Shiro.
>> >>
>> >> Kalle
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 4:09 AM, Deluan Quintão <deluan@deluan.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> > Hi,
>> >> >
>> >> > I've already submitted the patch to JIRA containing the shiro-faces
>> >> module,
>> >> > but I see you guys are very busy with the 1.1 release. I'm using the
>> >> faces
>> >> > module in one of my projects and making changes to it's code, so I
>> >> published
>> >> > it in a public repository as an independent module/library.
>> >> >
>> >> > So, in order to not leave an older version of the module attached to
>> >> JIRA,
>> >> > I'd like to hear your opinions of whether it's better to remove the
>> patch
>> >> > from there and add a comment pointing to the source repo I'm using
>> right
>> >> > now. Then, when you have a chance to look at it, you let me know and
I
>> >> > prepare an updated patch and attach again to the JIRA ticket.
>> >> >
>> >> > What do you think?
>> >> >
>> >> > Deluan
>> >> >
>> >> > On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 1:32 PM, Deluan Quintão <deluan@deluan.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> As I only have the JSF 1.2/Facelets module working and tested,
I'll
>> >> focus
>> >> >> on this for now, and when it's done I'll try to port it to JSF
2.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I'll create a shiro-faces module under 'support', and
>> >> >> use org.apache.shiro.web.faces as package.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Deluan
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Kalle Korhonen <
>> >> >> kalle.o.korhonen@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> Two modules sounds right. They *could* have the same name,
or
>> >> >>> artifactid, and reserve the first two version numbers to denote
the
>> >> >>> compatible jsf version, e.g. 1.1.x and 2.0.x. I can see these
being
>> >> >>> yet other independently releasable modules... (related to the
other
>> >> >>> thread).
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Kalle
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 4:29 AM, Deluan Quintão <deluan@deluan.com>
>> >> >>> wrote:
>> >> >>> > Hi All,
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > I have a issue regarding JSF/Facelets versions and would
like to
>> hear
>> >> >>> your
>> >> >>> > opinion.
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > The tags I develop were meant to be used with JSF 1.2/Facelets
>> >> 1.1.14.
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > I don't use JSF 2.0 in my company yet, but taking a quick
look on
>> it,
>> >> I
>> >> >>> saw
>> >> >>> > that Facelets were integrated in the 2.0 and the packages
for it
>> have
>> >> >>> > changed!
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > How do I go about it? Two libs, shiro-facelets (for JSF
>> 1.1/Facelets)
>> >> >>> and
>> >> >>> > shiro-jsf (for JSF 2.0) ?
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > What do you think?
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > Thanks,
>> >> >>> > Deluan.
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> >> >>> > From: Les Hazlewood <lhazlewood@apache.org>
>> >> >>> > Date: Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 3:50 PM
>> >> >>> > Subject: Re: Shiro tags not working in Icefaces page.
>> >> >>> > To: Deluan Quintão <deluan@deluan.com>
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > Hi Deluan,
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > Sounds good!
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > I have one quick request:  could you please send further
emails to
>> >> the
>> >> >>> > dev@shiro.apache.org list?  All development-related discussion
>> >> should
>> >> >>> > be out in the open with the community so everyone benefits
from
>> the
>> >> >>> > discussion, not just me ;).  I didn't CC the dev list
in case you
>> >> >>> > needed to keep this communication private for some reason,
but if
>> >> not,
>> >> >>> > can you please use the dev list from now on?  Thanks!
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > As for the source/Maven organization:
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > If the classes you're using are in JDK 5 without needing
any 3rd
>> >> party
>> >> >>> > dependency, your classes can go directly in the 'web'
module.  If
>> >> they
>> >> >>> > can, then the starting package should be
>> org.apache.shiro.web.faces
>> >> to
>> >> >>> > be congruent with the other similar web support packages
that
>> exist
>> >> >>> > (e.g. org.apache.shiro.web.servlet, org.apache.shiro.web.tags,
>> etc).
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > If your code requires a 3rd party library, the base code
>> >> >>> > (JDK5-compliant) should go in the 'web' module as noted
above, and
>> >> any
>> >> >>> > 3rd-party implementation-specific code would go into a
new
>> 'support'
>> >> >>> > module, i.e. <project root>/support/myfaces (or
similar, depending
>> on
>> >> >>> > the library).
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > As for mercurial/git, Apache only uses subversion, so
we use that.
>> >> >>> > The best way to share code with us is check out the code
from
>> >> >>> > subversion (trunk), make edits there, and upload patches
to Jira.
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > Cheers,
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > Les
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>>
>

Mime
View raw message