+1 for a new alpha release. Actually I support everything in the process that allows bugs to be detected early.
Though, I haven't seen much MF 2.0 user activity until now (mailing list activity, issues...). We have some catching up to do with Mojarra. /JK 2009/12/29 Jakob Korherr <jakob.korh...@gmail.com>: > Hi, > > +1 for a beta release. > > As far as I know there are just a few more things to do, mostly regarding > f:ajax and some other minor issues. > > I am currently working on MYFACES-2363 - this will be in place soon! > > Regards, > > Jakob Korherr > > 2009/12/29 Leonardo Uribe <lu4...@gmail.com> >> >> Hi >> >> Yes, there is a lot of issues solved right now, so I would like to do a >> release, but right now I'm on vacations until January 10. >> >> My personal list of issues to be solved before release a new alpha (maybe >> we should release as beta or release candidate). >> >> MYFACES-2363 ExceptionHandler implementation requires deal with ajax >> responses >> MYFACES-2464 Find a way to do not use ELExpressions on jsf.js for >> getProjectStage >> Commit all pending patches. >> Release myfaces-builder-plugin again to include some fixes on component >> generation for jsf 2.0 (also include @JSFWebConfigParam "deprecated" >> property). >> >> Jakob is doing a great job fixing ExceptionHandler api, so as soon as >> these issues are solved I'll start the procedure for another release. >> >> regards >> >> Leonardo Uribe >> >> 2009/12/29 Grant Smith <work.gr...@gmail.com> >>> >>> I would say definitely release a new one... >>> >>> On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 2:23 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <mat...@apache.org> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> cool. >>>> >>>> Leo, all: >>>> do you have the feeling we may need a new alpha? I saw some fixes >>>> coming in, and producing some >>>> alphas at least gives us more visibility :-) >>>> >>>> WDYT ? >>>> >>>> -Matthias >>>> >>>> On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 12:37 AM, Leonardo Uribe <lu4...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> > Hi >>>> > >>>> > I deploy a snapshot here: >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > http://people.apache.org/repo/m2-snapshot-repository/org/apache/myfaces/core/ >>>> > >>>> > regards, >>>> > >>>> > Leonardo Uribe >>>> > >>>> > 2009/12/27 Jan-Kees van Andel <jankeesvanan...@gmail.com> >>>> >> >>>> >> I don't see the problem of building a snapshot, but for some reason >>>> >> Continuum is unavailable. I get a "Connection Reset" http error. >>>> >> >>>> >> I'm also not sure if I have build rights in Continuum, but I'm sure >>>> >> some guys on this thread do... >>>> >> >>>> >> /JK >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> 2009/12/26 David Jencks <david_jen...@yahoo.com>: >>>> >> > Many thanks for applying this! >>>> >> > >>>> >> > If it doesn't go against any myfaces development policies, it would >>>> >> > be >>>> >> > great >>>> >> > if someone could deploy a snapshot built after this patch. >>>> >> > >>>> >> > thanks >>>> >> > david jencks >>>> >> > >>>> >> > On Dec 24, 2009, at 5:33 AM, Matthias Wessendorf wrote: >>>> >> > >>>> >> >> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=893759 >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> David, thanks for the patch >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> -Matthias >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> On Thu, Dec 24, 2009 at 2:19 PM, Scott O'Bryan >>>> >> >> <darkar...@gmail.com> >>>> >> >> wrote: >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> >>> 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 >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> -- >>>> >> >> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Grant Smith >>> >> > >
