Yah guys, thanks for clearing that up. Your right that I didn't take
a look at the patch and mis understood your proposal. +1 to the patch.
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 24, 2009, at 2:27 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <mat...@apache.org>
wrote:
> Hey David,
>
> On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 10:32 PM, David Jencks
> <david_jen...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I'm afraid there is still a lot of confusion about the proposed
>> patch. The
>> comments don't appear to me to relate to the patch. I'm not sure
>> how to
>> proceed other than through excessive and rather obnoxious
>> repetition, for
>> which I apologize.
>
> :-) No worries
>
>> If there is some more information I could provide to
>> clear things up please let me know what it is. I could provide
>> before-and-after manifest.mf but in my experience these are really
>> hard to
>> see what is going on in due to the rather opaque formatting rules,
>> I think
>> the maven-bundle-plugin configuration from the patch is a lot
>> clearer.
>
> +1 on a patch
>
>> On Dec 22, 2009, at 2:26 PM, Scott O'Bryan wrote:
>>
>> I think I agree with Matthias that this may be problematic. If you
>> compile
>> something against Servlet 3.0 classes, you very well may run into
>> some
>> runtime issues if you then try to use those binaries in a Servlet
>> 2.5 type
>> environment. You generally *WILL NOT* run into problems if you do
>> the
>> reverse.
>>
>> True, but irrelevant to the change proposed in the patch. The
>> patch does
>> not change any dependencies.
>
> I think that was misunderstood ?
>
>>
>> Now that's not to say it's impossible. Trinidad, for instance,
>> builds
>> against the Portlet 2.0 jars yet we work in Portlet 1.0 as well,
>> but we had
>> to use a bunch of proxy objects attached to interfaces and a lot of
>> reflection to get this to work correctly.
>>
>> I guess I'm wondering what issue you have right now with the current
>> dependencies.
>>
>> None, I'm not proposing changing any dependencies.
>
> I think it is now more clear
>
>>
>> Just because myfaces depends on Servlet 2.5 does not mean that
>> geronimo
>> can't depend on Servlet 3.0. They should both be "provided"
>> dependencies.
>>
>> The patch does not relate to maven dependencies in any way.
>
> Yes, correct
>
>>
>> If you *DO* need Servlet 3.0 support as a library, I would suggest
>> adding it
>> as a profile which DOES NOT run by default.. Just my $.02..
>>
>> A profile would not be able to affect this issue, since we need
>> different
>> osgi metadata in the published jars. We don't care what myfaces
>> builds
>> against.
>
> fair enough :-)
>
>>
>> So, here's the patch:
>> Index: impl/pom.xml
>> ===================================================================
>> --- impl/pom.xml (revision 892639)
>> +++ impl/pom.xml (working copy)
>> @@ -223,13 +223,13 @@
>> javax.ejb;resolution:=optional,
>> javax.el;version="[1.0.0, 3.0.0)",
>> javax.naming,
>> - javax.persistence;version="[1.0.0,
>> 2.0.0)";resolution:=optional,
>> - javax.portlet;version="[1.0.0,
>> 2.0.0)";resolution:=optional,
>> - javax.servlet;version="[2.5.0, 3.0.0)",
>> - javax.servlet.http;version="[2.5.0, 3.0.0)",
>> - javax.servlet.jsp;version="[2.1.0, 3.0.0)",
>> + javax.persistence;version="[1.0.0,
>> 2.1)";resolution:=optional,
>> + javax.portlet;version="[1.0.0,
>> 2.1)";resolution:=optional,
>> + javax.servlet;version="[2.5.0, 3.1)",
>> + javax.servlet.http;version="[2.5.0, 3.1)",
>> + javax.servlet.jsp;version="[2.1.0, 3.1)",
>> javax.servlet.jsp.jstl.core;version="[1.1.2,
>> 2.0.0)",
>> - javax.servlet.jsp.tagext;version="[2.1.0, 3.0.0)",
>> + javax.servlet.jsp.tagext;version="[2.1.0, 3.1)",
>> javax.xml.parsers,
>> org.apache;resolution:=optional,
>> org.apache.commons.beanutils;version="[1.7.0,
>> 2.0.0)",
>> Index: api/pom.xml
>> ===================================================================
>> --- api/pom.xml (revision 892639)
>> +++ api/pom.xml (working copy)
>> @@ -221,12 +221,12 @@
>> </Export-Package>
>> <Import-Package>
>> javax.el;version="[1.0.0, 3.0.0)",
>> - javax.servlet;version="[2.5.0, 3.0.0)",
>> - javax.servlet.http;version="[2.5.0, 3.0.0)",
>> - javax.servlet.jsp;version="[2.1.0, 3.0.0)",
>> + javax.servlet;version="[2.5.0, 3.1)",
>> + javax.servlet.http;version="[2.5.0, 3.1)",
>> + javax.servlet.jsp;version="[2.1.0, 3.1)",
>> javax.servlet.jsp.jstl.core;version="[1.1.2,
>> 2.0.0)",
>> javax.servlet.jsp.jstl.sql;version="[1.1.2,
>> 2.0.0)",
>> - javax.servlet.jsp.tagext;version="[2.1.0, 3.0.0)",
>> + javax.servlet.jsp.tagext;version="[2.1.0, 3.1)",
>> org.apache.commons.logging;version="[1.1.1,
>> 2.0.0)",
>> javax.faces.*;version="${project.version}"
>> </Import-Package>
>> I think it's fairly clear that this does not change the maven
>> dependencies
>> or what myfaces is building against. All it does is allow myfaces
>> to be
>> used in an osgi environment with a servlet 3 spec jar. That is
>> currently
>> not possible. This is blocking geronimo-myfaces 2 integration. I
>> can't
>> imagine any scenario that currently works that this proposed change
>> would
>> affect, all it does is allow myfaces to be used in more
>> environments. If
>> you think this change will prevent a currently working scenario
>> from working
>> please explain what it is and how.
>
>
> I think I am totally fine on the <Import-Package> changes.
> Let me give your patch a try.
>
> David, thanks for bugging you on that, again.
>
> -Matthias
>
>> thanks
>> david jencks
>>
>>
>> Scott
>>
>> David Jencks wrote:
>>
>> Matthias,
>> I'm not sure you understand what Ivan is requesting. The osgi
>> package
>> version metadata does not specify what jar myfaces is built
>> against, but
>> does restrict which package versions myfaces can be used with in an
>> osgi
>> environment. While the osgi package version metadata is not part
>> of javaee
>> specs, there seems to be general agreement that the spec version
>> should be
>> used as the package version for api jars. So, in order for myfaces
>> to be
>> used in a javee 6 environment, it needs to allow wiring to a
>> servlet 3.0
>> spec jar. That doesn't mean that you need to build myfaces against a
>> servlet 3 jar, nor does it prevent myfaces from working with
>> servlet 2.5
>> spec jars in, say, a javaee 5 environment.
>> I'd appreciate it if someone could update trunk for this so we can
>> continue
>> with integrating myfaces 2 in geronimo. I've attached a suitable
>> patch to
>> MYFACES-2290 as
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12428613/allow-ee6-versioned-apis.diff
>> With this patch we can at least start a server that has loaded
>> myfaces 2.
>> Hopefully soon we'll be able to run the ee6 version of the tck.
>> many thanks
>> david jencks
>> On Nov 26, 2009, at 6:23 AM, Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
>>
>> Ivan,
>>
>> we can't use servlet 3.0.0 yet. Not yet final ...
>> and jsf 2.0 has _no_ dependency to it...
>>
>> -Matthias
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 3:17 PM, Ivan <xhh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi, is it possible to update the accepted servlet spec version to
>> 3.0.0 in
>>
>> the configurations of maven-bundle-plugin?
>>
>> Thanks !
>>
>> 2009/11/26 Werner Punz <werner.p...@gmail.com>
>>
>> +1
>>
>> Leonardo Uribe schrieb:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I was running the needed tasks to get the 2.0.0-alpha release of
>> Apache
>>
>> MyFaces core out.
>>
>> Please note that this vote concerns all of the following parts:
>>
>> 1. Maven artifact group "org.apache.myfaces.shared" v4.0.1-alpha
>> [1]
>>
>> 2. Maven artifact group "org.apache.myfaces.test" v1.0.0-alpha [1]
>>
>> 3. Maven artifact group "org.apache.myfaces.core" v2.0.0-alpha [1]
>>
>> The artifacts are deployed to my private Apache account ([1] and [3]
>>
>> for binary and source packages).
>>
>> The release notes could be found at [4].
>>
>> Also the clirr test does not show binary incompatibilities with
>>
>> myfaces-api.
>>
>> Please take a look at the "2.0.0-alpha" artifacts and vote!
>>
>> Please note: This vote is "majority approval" with a minimum of three
>>
>> +1 votes (see [3]).
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------
>>
>> [ ] +1 for community members who have reviewed the bits
>>
>> [ ] +0
>>
>> [ ] -1 for fatal flaws that should cause these bits not to be
>> released,
>>
>> and why..............
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Leonardo Uribe
>>
>> [1] http://people.apache.org/~lu4242/myfaces200alpha
>>
>> [2] http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#ReleaseVotes
>>
>> [3] http://people.apache.org/~lu4242/myfaces200alphabinsrc
>>
>> [4]
>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=10600&styleName=Html&version=12313389
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Ivan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Matthias Wessendorf
>>
>> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
>> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
>> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Matthias Wessendorf
>
> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
