Yes there is.. Although the JSR has not been kicked off yet, we do have a 'very' preliminary stab as JSF 2.0 bridge that runs Trinidad 2.0. Bright now it exists as a private branch over in the Portlet Bridge svn repository. Starting with this version, I'm taking advantage of the MyFaces 'share' project to get the implementation of some base classes. It should cut down on the amount of 'duplicated' work. Don't know what the final project will look like exactly but O don't expect it to take nearly as long as the other two bridges.
Scott Sent from my iPhone On Jun 22, 2010, at 4:48 PM, Leonardo Uribe <[email protected]> wrote: Hi That's cool!. Any plans for jsf 2.0 + portlets? regards, Leonardo 2010/6/22 Scott O'Bryan <[email protected]> > Hello everyone, > > For those of you unfamiliar with the portlet-bridge project, it is > essentially the R.I. implementation of JSR-301 and JSR-328. For over a year > some core people have been working on getting the R.I. up to par. The one > piece that was missing from this was the TCK. > > Well, Michael Freedman will be announcing the release of Portlet Bridge > 1.0, which will become the R.I. for JSR-301 pending approvals. We also got > the legalities of the TCK release figured out as well and I wanted to run > things by the developers before putting a release of the project to a vote. > > Essentially, the TCK exists, en total, here at Apache and is run using a > plugable maven build script instead of Sun's Portal TCK Harness like we were > planning on using initially. What this means is that the TCK will be > downloadable by anyone though the TCK project's svn repository right here at > MyFaces. To my knowledge I think this is a first for Apache and will > hopefully pave the way for continued support of the JCP from the Apache > Community. > > I'd like to start a vote to release the official TCK for JSR-301 tomorrow > but I wanted to do one final sanity check from the community to make sure > this is still in line with what people want. When we talked about the TCK > earlier, there were many questions as to why this TCK could not exist > completely in the open source community and, in the end, that's exactly what > we did. > > Thanks, > Scott O'Bryan >
