FYI Fwd: [TEST] Shale Test copied

2009-05-21 Thread Matthias Wessendorf
FYI


-- Forwarded message --
From: Matthias Wessendorf mat...@apache.org
Date: Thu, May 21, 2009 at 10:48 PM
Subject: [TEST] Shale Test copied
To: MyFaces Development d...@myfaces.apache.org


hi,

as Shale has *retired* (see [1]) I finally... copied the test
framework code over to myfaces (as already
discussed before).

Folder:
/myfaces/test/trunk

I think we all (myfaces committers) should be able to commit to the
folder... if not, let me know...

I will do the package renaming etc, so that we can continue the
success story of the shale testing
code (and have the right enhancements for MyFaces 2.0)

-Matthias

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ATTIC-2

--
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


Splitting shale-test into JSF specific projects (was Re: [1.1.0] Testing of Shale-Core fails due to missing ViewExpiredException)

2008-12-10 Thread Paul Spencer


On Dec 9, 2008, at 1:08 PM, Gary%20VanMatre wrote:





snip
I was thinking that we might need to break JSF 1.1 and 1.2 support  
into two projects so that we could better configure the dependencies  
and binaries.  If we did that, we could still have JSF 1.2 test  
build on JSF 1.1 test.  That might make the release simpler too?



Paul Spencer

Gary



Are you suggesting the following project layout?

  shale-test
shale-test-common - Build using using JDK 1.4
shale-test-jsf1_1 - Build using JDK 1.4
shale-test-jsf1_2 - Build using JDK 1.5


Paul Spencer


Re: Splitting shale-test into JSF specific projects (was Re: [1.1.0] Testing of Shale-Core fails due to missing ViewExpiredException)

2008-12-10 Thread Gary%20VanMatre


From: Paul Spencer 
To: dev@shale.apache.org
Sent: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 10:45:47 + (UTC)
Subject: Splitting shale-test into JSF specific projects (was Re: [1.1.0] 
Testing of Shale-Core fails due to missing ViewExpiredException)


On Dec 9, 2008, at 1:08 PM, Gary%20VanMatre wrote:




 I was thinking that we might need to break JSF 1.1 and 1.2 support  
 into two projects so that we could better configure the dependencies  
 and binaries.  If we did that, we could still have JSF 1.2 test  
 build on JSF 1.1 test.  That might make the release simpler too?

 Paul Spencer
 Gary


Are you suggesting the following project layout?

   shale-test
     shale-test-common - Build using using JDK 1.4
     shale-test-jsf1_1 - Build using JDK 1.4
     shale-test-jsf1_2 - Build using JDK 1.5


+1 That sounds good to me.  

Paul Spencer



Re: Shale test status

2008-10-22 Thread Greg Reddin
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 10:49 AM, Gary VanMatre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 I'd rather see the Shale community grow this library and the Shale project.  
 However, if the communities feel that the only way we can find volunteers to 
 contribute to its ongoing growth (seems a bit snobbish) is to move to 
 MyFaces, then so be it.

+1. I'm not saying I'm dead set against a MyFaces merger. If that's
the best thing for the Shale project, then let's go do it. But I would
much rather see efforts to grow the Shale community, rather than take
one node that has a lot of interest and move it somewhere else.  I
don't think we've really explored the options that involve keeping all
of Shale here.

As to Simon's argument that Shale Test is linked exclusively to JSF, I
think that applies to the whole framework. We can't work towards a JSF
2 version of the other components without having a JSF 2 codebase to
link to. So if Test is being held back by that dependency then so is
the rest of the project.

Greg


Re: Shale test status

2008-10-22 Thread Simon Lessard
Hi Greb,

My problem isn't that Shale Test is linked to JSF, it's that MyFaces API is
linked to Shale-Test (while not to any other module). The part of Shale-test
we're using to test MyFaces isn't even linked to Shale other than for
historical reason (no harm intended here, it's merely factual). If the base
test classes don't get moved to MyFaces, then we're more or less condemning
MyFaces API to wait for RI to be released so that Shale-test can depend on
it to be updated to 2.0 API, or forcing MyFaces API to redevelop the base
test classes, or release versions without running unit tests on the API. If
you see any other way, please share it, because that would fix the issue
here.


Regards,

~ Simon

On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 10:48 AM, Greg Reddin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 10:49 AM, Gary VanMatre [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
 
  I'd rather see the Shale community grow this library and the Shale
 project.  However, if the communities feel that the only way we can find
 volunteers to contribute to its ongoing growth (seems a bit snobbish) is to
 move to MyFaces, then so be it.

 +1. I'm not saying I'm dead set against a MyFaces merger. If that's
 the best thing for the Shale project, then let's go do it. But I would
 much rather see efforts to grow the Shale community, rather than take
 one node that has a lot of interest and move it somewhere else.  I
 don't think we've really explored the options that involve keeping all
 of Shale here.

 As to Simon's argument that Shale Test is linked exclusively to JSF, I
 think that applies to the whole framework. We can't work towards a JSF
 2 version of the other components without having a JSF 2 codebase to
 link to. So if Test is being held back by that dependency then so is
 the rest of the project.

 Greg



Re: Shale test status

2008-10-22 Thread Greg Reddin
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 10:45 AM, Simon Lessard
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 If the base
 test classes don't get moved to MyFaces, then we're more or less condemning
 MyFaces API to wait for RI to be released so that Shale-test can depend on
 it to be updated to 2.0 API, or forcing MyFaces API to redevelop the base
 test classes, or release versions without running unit tests on the API.

I'm trying to make sure I understand the issue so please bear with me.
If shale-test depends on 2.0 RI and 2.0 RI is not yet released, then
shale-test cannot be upgraded, no matter where it lives, correct? If
so, then a JSF 2.0 development branch could be created (either in
Shale or MyFaces) so work can be done on a 2.0 version of shale-test.
That development branch could depend on a snapshot of JSF 2.0 (whether
the snapshot is MyFaces or something else) while it is in development.
Once there is a release of the 2.0 API anywhere, then shale-test can
be released, then MyFaces, once passing all tests, can be released.
Have I identified the situation correctly?

If so, then I can see how it would be more convenient for the MyFaces
community for shale-test to live there. But it could further isolate
the Shale community by moving a vibrant part of Shale out. I would
rather see more cooperation occur. If we get enough folks to commit to
Shale (even just test) then Shale releases don't have to be such a
backlog. I don't think MyFaces are the only people relying on or
benefitting from shale-test so it might not be a good idea to tie
shale-test releases into MyFaces.

Greg


Re: Shale test status

2008-10-22 Thread Simon Lessard
Hi Greg,

See inline.

~ Simon

On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 12:19 PM, Greg Reddin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 10:45 AM, Simon Lessard
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  If the base
  test classes don't get moved to MyFaces, then we're more or less
 condemning
  MyFaces API to wait for RI to be released so that Shale-test can depend
 on
  it to be updated to 2.0 API, or forcing MyFaces API to redevelop the base
  test classes, or release versions without running unit tests on the API.

 I'm trying to make sure I understand the issue so please bear with me.
 If shale-test depends on 2.0 RI and 2.0 RI is not yet released, then
 shale-test cannot be upgraded, no matter where it lives, correct?


Correct.


 If so, then a JSF 2.0 development branch could be created (either in
 Shale or MyFaces) so work can be done on a 2.0 version of shale-test.
 That development branch could depend on a snapshot of JSF 2.0 (whether
 the snapshot is MyFaces or something else) while it is in development.


Yes, but you're assuming that there is a -SNAPHOT version and that's the
root of the problem.

We cannot even create snapshot version as Continuum is going to whine about
test not passing since we depend on shale-test which itself isn't ready for
2.0 since it is waiting for API 2.0 to exist. So, to get a -SNAPSHOT
somewhere in the Maven repository we have to either do an alpha release of
the API disabling unit tests, or create our own base test classes and no
longer depend on Shale-Test (we would more or less recreate Shale-test in a
way).

If we cannot do either of those options, then we can't release or even JUnit
test the new code until JSF RI is released so that Shale-test depends on it,
so that in turn MyFaces API can build have an official release and finally
so that Shale-Test 2.0 can use MyFaces API 2.0 as a dependency rather than
RI.



 Once there is a release of the 2.0 API anywhere, then shale-test can
 be released, then MyFaces, once passing all tests, can be released.
 Have I identified the situation correctly?


Yup, exactly, but the anywhere here means RI since MyFaces depends on
Shale-test.



 If so, then I can see how it would be more convenient for the MyFaces
 community for shale-test to live there. But it could further isolate
 the Shale community by moving a vibrant part of Shale out. I would
 rather see more cooperation occur. If we get enough folks to commit to
 Shale (even just test) then Shale releases don't have to be such a
 backlog.


I don't know the whole Shale test framework, however would it be possible or
conceivable to not move it completely, simply moving the core classes that
are inherently linked to the API (FacesContext, Application and such) and
keep everything else under shale test umbrella? Or is the whole framework
composed of such core classes?


 I don't think MyFaces are the only people relying on or
 benefitting from shale-test so it might not be a good idea to tie
 shale-test releases into MyFaces.


Of course not, we would have to work out something on that matter so that
everyones using shale-test keep fully compatibility without even changing
their pom, this could be achieved (in case it was moved completely or in
part to MyFaces) by having shale-test depend on myfaces-api's test-jar for
example.




 Greg



Re: Shale test status

2008-10-20 Thread Gary VanMatre

 -- Original message --
From: Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 11:34 PM, Kito Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  Hey Simon,
 
  I don't think this has been officially decided. Check out the recent
  thread on this topic.
 
  However, if you're going to be making changes for JSF 2, this might be
  a good time to move it over to MyFaces. I don't think Gary agrees,
  though :-).
 
 I am also +1 on the move ;-)
 

Humm, well, I don't understand why shale test is excluded from the normal 
community protocol.  For goodness sakes, what if every project felt it 
necessary to pull commons digester into their own just because they use it.

I'd rather see the Shale community grow this library and the Shale project.  
However, if the communities feel that the only way we can find volunteers to 
contribute to its ongoing growth (seems a bit snobbish) is to move to MyFaces, 
then so be it.





 
  On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 1:04 PM, Simon Lessard
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  Hi,
 
  I'm working on implementing JSF 2.0 for MyFaces and as you may know, 
  MyFaces
  uses Shale test for its unit testing. However, the new API and contracts
  involved in JSF 2.0 make it so that current test fails with an
  UnsupportedOperationException since some test implementations don't 
  override
  the new method that weren't marked abstract for binary code compatibility.
 
  Anyway, my point is, what is the current status and roadmap for shale-test
  framework? Should JSF 2.0 changes be applied to it or will it be integrated
  in in part or completely in MyFaces with time?
 
 
  Thanks,
 
  ~ Simon
 
 
 
 
  --
  Kito D. Mann -- Author, JavaServer Faces in Action
  http://twitter.com/kito99
  http://www.virtua.com - JSF/Java EE consulting, training, and mentoring
  http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info
  +1 203-404-4848 x3
 
  * Sign up for the JSF Central newsletter! 
  http://oi.vresp.com/?fid=ac048d0e17 
 *
 
 
 
 
 -- 
 Matthias Wessendorf
 
 blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
 sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
 twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf



Re: Shale test status

2008-10-20 Thread Simon Lessard
Hi Craig,

The difference is the test framework, or at least a part of it, is linked
exclusively to JSF. More practically, what this mean is that we have a
cyclic reference between the API and the test. For example, the test
framework depends on FacesContext. However, since we like Shale test
framework, we also test the API with the framework, now this is a chicken or
egg issue.

This is even more problematic in case of JSF 2.0 since there's no released
API to depend on, so I cannot modify the framework even by depending on
SNAPSHOT pseudo release since I cannot build those with unit test sicne
those unit tests aren't 2.0 compliant. I guess it would be possible to
create a pseudo release skipping unit tests, but it seems against the
standard quality reputation of Apache to do so.

So, personally, I would have liked to put the JSF part of the framework in
MyFaces test project and release the test jar at the same time as the core
so that people can still use it as a dependency.


Regards,

~ Simon

On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 11:49 AM, Gary VanMatre [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:


  -- Original message --
 From: Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 11:34 PM, Kito Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
   Hey Simon,
  
   I don't think this has been officially decided. Check out the recent
   thread on this topic.
  
   However, if you're going to be making changes for JSF 2, this might be
   a good time to move it over to MyFaces. I don't think Gary agrees,
   though :-).
 
  I am also +1 on the move ;-)
 

 Humm, well, I don't understand why shale test is excluded from the normal
 community protocol.  For goodness sakes, what if every project felt it
 necessary to pull commons digester into their own just because they use it.

 I'd rather see the Shale community grow this library and the Shale project.
  However, if the communities feel that the only way we can find volunteers
 to contribute to its ongoing growth (seems a bit snobbish) is to move to
 MyFaces, then so be it.





  
   On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 1:04 PM, Simon Lessard
   [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   Hi,
  
   I'm working on implementing JSF 2.0 for MyFaces and as you may know,
 MyFaces
   uses Shale test for its unit testing. However, the new API and
 contracts
   involved in JSF 2.0 make it so that current test fails with an
   UnsupportedOperationException since some test implementations don't
 override
   the new method that weren't marked abstract for binary code
 compatibility.
  
   Anyway, my point is, what is the current status and roadmap for
 shale-test
   framework? Should JSF 2.0 changes be applied to it or will it be
 integrated
   in in part or completely in MyFaces with time?
  
  
   Thanks,
  
   ~ Simon
  
  
  
  
   --
   Kito D. Mann -- Author, JavaServer Faces in Action
   http://twitter.com/kito99
   http://www.virtua.com - JSF/Java EE consulting, training, and
 mentoring
   http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info
   +1 203-404-4848 x3
  
   * Sign up for the JSF Central newsletter!
 http://oi.vresp.com/?fid=ac048d0e17
  *
  
 
 
 
  --
  Matthias Wessendorf
 
  blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
  sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
  twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf




Re: Shale test status

2008-10-20 Thread Simon Lessard
Oups, I meant Gary sorry... Dunno why I confused you with Craig...

On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 12:17 PM, Simon Lessard
[EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:

 Hi Craig,

 The difference is the test framework, or at least a part of it, is linked
 exclusively to JSF. More practically, what this mean is that we have a
 cyclic reference between the API and the test. For example, the test
 framework depends on FacesContext. However, since we like Shale test
 framework, we also test the API with the framework, now this is a chicken or
 egg issue.

 This is even more problematic in case of JSF 2.0 since there's no released
 API to depend on, so I cannot modify the framework even by depending on
 SNAPSHOT pseudo release since I cannot build those with unit test sicne
 those unit tests aren't 2.0 compliant. I guess it would be possible to
 create a pseudo release skipping unit tests, but it seems against the
 standard quality reputation of Apache to do so.

 So, personally, I would have liked to put the JSF part of the framework in
 MyFaces test project and release the test jar at the same time as the core
 so that people can still use it as a dependency.


 Regards,

 ~ Simon


 On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 11:49 AM, Gary VanMatre [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:


  -- Original message --
 From: Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 11:34 PM, Kito Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
   Hey Simon,
  
   I don't think this has been officially decided. Check out the recent
   thread on this topic.
  
   However, if you're going to be making changes for JSF 2, this might be
   a good time to move it over to MyFaces. I don't think Gary agrees,
   though :-).
 
  I am also +1 on the move ;-)
 

 Humm, well, I don't understand why shale test is excluded from the normal
 community protocol.  For goodness sakes, what if every project felt it
 necessary to pull commons digester into their own just because they use it.

 I'd rather see the Shale community grow this library and the Shale
 project.  However, if the communities feel that the only way we can find
 volunteers to contribute to its ongoing growth (seems a bit snobbish) is to
 move to MyFaces, then so be it.





  
   On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 1:04 PM, Simon Lessard
   [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   Hi,
  
   I'm working on implementing JSF 2.0 for MyFaces and as you may know,
 MyFaces
   uses Shale test for its unit testing. However, the new API and
 contracts
   involved in JSF 2.0 make it so that current test fails with an
   UnsupportedOperationException since some test implementations don't
 override
   the new method that weren't marked abstract for binary code
 compatibility.
  
   Anyway, my point is, what is the current status and roadmap for
 shale-test
   framework? Should JSF 2.0 changes be applied to it or will it be
 integrated
   in in part or completely in MyFaces with time?
  
  
   Thanks,
  
   ~ Simon
  
  
  
  
   --
   Kito D. Mann -- Author, JavaServer Faces in Action
   http://twitter.com/kito99
   http://www.virtua.com - JSF/Java EE consulting, training, and
 mentoring
   http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info
   +1 203-404-4848 x3
  
   * Sign up for the JSF Central newsletter!
 http://oi.vresp.com/?fid=ac048d0e17
  *
  
 
 
 
  --
  Matthias Wessendorf
 
  blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
  sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
  twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf





Re: Shale Test

2008-10-02 Thread Matthias Wessendorf
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 4:48 PM, Gary VanMatre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  -- Original message --
 From: Bernd Bohmann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Hello,

 Matthias Wessendorf schrieb:
  I personally only have interest in test, that's what I use on my projects.
  But if don't care about the rest.
 
  So, could an only 1.1 release of test work ?
 

 +1

 I think we would need to vote on releasing just a 1.1 shale test library but 
 I don't see any major issue there given the big fuss.   Matthias, are you 
 volunteering?



 https://issues.apache.org/struts/browse/SHALE-465
 https://issues.apache.org/struts/browse/SHALE-466
 https://issues.apache.org/struts/browse/SHALE-467
 https://issues.apache.org/struts/browse/SHALE-468

 I would like to use Shale Test for MyFaces Tobago, but all patches have
 only been applied to trunk. Should I resend the patches for the 1.0 branch?


 That's odd.  Maybe Matthias had some reason for only applying these to the 
 snapshot branch.

I did that, because I think that development should be done on trunk.

Bernd, any chance you guys can use an upcoming 1.1 ?
Otherwise, of course, I will apply these changes to the (out-dated)
branch as well.

-Matthias




 Regards

 Bernd



 Gary




-- 
Matthias Wessendorf

blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf


Re: Shale Test

2008-10-02 Thread Kito Mann
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 2:42 PM, Gary VanMatre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


  -- Original message --
 From: Kito Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Greg Reddin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
   On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 6:22 PM, Kito Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
   
That's fine, but I don't really see _anyone_ driving releases :-).
 What's
the problem with letting Shale Test move somewhere else?
  
   
  
The problem, though, is that Shale Test is part of a project that has
stagnated. So, even if Shale Test moves forward, it's difficult to
 get
traction if the whole project is perceived as stale. Do you see what
 I'm
saying?
  
   If there are so many people out there who want to help move Shale Test
   forward, then we would love for them to step up and start
   contributing. Look at it this way: I use Shale in at least one project
   at work, so I have a vested interest in it continuing to work. Now a
   whole bunch of people from Project Foo think Shale needs to move
   forward and that it can move forward better over at Project Foo.
  
   But I've never seen code from the folks at Project Foo. I don't know
   their attitudes or development styles. I don't know how they work with
   others. I don't know if they will release it under a license I am
   comfortable with. How can I agree in good faith to just hand over the
   management of Shale to Project Foo when I don't know these things?
  
   We are commissioned by the ASF to manage the Shale project. You could
   make a decent argument that we have not done a very good job of
   managing the project. But we cannot recommend to the ASF in good faith
   that the best direction for the project is to send it to somebody else
   who we don't know.
  
   So that brings us back to this: If people think Shale Test needs to
   move forward then I would cordially and sincerely invite them to come
   join the dev list and start submitting patches. Point me to the
   patches that have not been responded to. Point me to the questions and
   requests that are not being answered. When I see that I can begin to
   give credibility to your argument that Shale would be better managed
   elsewhere.
  
   Just so I am clear: the motive of this post is not to be dramatic or
   troll or anything like that. I want to see Shale move forward too. If
   the best thing is for it to move elsewhere, then I will be the first
   to vote for that. But I can't trust who I don't know. Send those folks
   over here and let's engage in some discussion and get some stuff done.
  
 
  Ok. I'll certainly ping Stan and company. But I think my sentiment is
 valid
  even if we just move it to MyFaces. That, to me, would make plenty of
 sense
  because plenty of the MyFaces projects use it.
 

 Well, we have several myfaces committers on the shale project.  I'm not
 convinced that moving the code there under different package names
  would make the bits work better.


Okay. That's a fair point. I'm still concerned about the future of Shale as
a whole -- I guess that's the main issue... Where will things be in a year?









 
 
  --
  Kito D. Mann -- Author, JavaServer Faces in Action
  http://twitter.com/kito99
  http://www.virtua.com - JSF/Java EE consulting, training, and mentoring
  http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info
  +1 203-404-4848 x3
 
  * Sign up for the JSF Central newsletter!
  http://oi.vresp.com/?fid=ac048d0e17 *




-- 
Kito D. Mann -- Author, JavaServer Faces in Action
http://twitter.com/kito99
http://www.virtua.com - JSF/Java EE consulting, training, and mentoring
http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info
+1 203-404-4848 x3

* Sign up for the JSF Central newsletter!
http://oi.vresp.com/?fid=ac048d0e17 *


Re: Shale Test

2008-10-01 Thread Matthias Wessendorf
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 10:40 PM, Paul Spencer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 My main reason for not advocating moving Shale Test into MyFaces is because
 it is implementation agnostic.  1.1-SNAPSHOT is even able to load the

I don't get that.
It would be a separate module, not part of myfaces impl, of course...

 implementation's configuration files!. That said, their has not been a
 release in an while and a supported Shale Test under MyFaces is better then
 the current state.

 Shale contains other components, including Shale Dialog which I use, that
 need to be included in this discussion.

worth to discuss on a different thread, this is on test ;-)


 Paul Spencer

 Kito Mann wrote:

 Hello everyone,

 At JSFOne we were discussing Shale Test, and again the idea of moving it
 out
 of Shale popped up. With so little activity in the Shale project, I'd like
 to bring up the issue of migrating it to MyFaces proper, or out of MyFaces
 all-together. Thoughts?

 ~~~
 Kito D. Mann -- Author, JavaServer Faces in Action
 http://twitter.com/kito99
 http://www.virtua.com - JSF/Java EE consulting, training, and mentoring
 http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info
 +1 203-404-4848 x3

 * Sign up for the JSF Central newsletter!
 http://oi.vresp.com/?fid=ac048d0e17 *






-- 
Matthias Wessendorf

blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf


Re: Shale Test

2008-10-01 Thread Matthias Wessendorf
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 5:23 PM, Greg Reddin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 6:22 PM, Kito Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 That's fine, but I don't really see _anyone_ driving releases :-). What's
 the problem with letting Shale Test move somewhere else?

 

 The problem, though, is that Shale Test is part of a project that has
 stagnated. So, even if Shale Test moves forward, it's difficult to get
 traction if the whole project is perceived as stale. Do you see what I'm
 saying?

 If there are so many people out there who want to help move Shale Test
 forward, then we would love for them to step up and start
 contributing. Look at it this way: I use Shale in at least one project
 at work, so I have a vested interest in it continuing to work. Now a
 whole bunch of people from Project Foo think Shale needs to move
 forward and that it can move forward better over at Project Foo.

 But I've never seen code from the folks at Project Foo. I don't know
 their attitudes or development styles. I don't know how they work with
 others. I don't know if they will release it under a license I am
 comfortable with. How can I agree in good faith to just hand over the
 management of Shale to Project Foo when I don't know these things?

+1

I doubt it is good to be at Foo at all.


 We are commissioned by the ASF to manage the Shale project. You could
 make a decent argument that we have not done a very good job of
 managing the project. But we cannot recommend to the ASF in good faith
 that the best direction for the project is to send it to somebody else
 who we don't know.

 So that brings us back to this: If people think Shale Test needs to
 move forward then I would cordially and sincerely invite them to come
 join the dev list and start submitting patches. Point me to the
 patches that have not been responded to. Point me to the questions and
 requests that are not being answered. When I see that I can begin to
 give credibility to your argument that Shale would be better managed
 elsewhere.

 Just so I am clear: the motive of this post is not to be dramatic or
 troll or anything like that. I want to see Shale move forward too. If
 the best thing is for it to move elsewhere, then I will be the first
 to vote for that. But I can't trust who I don't know. Send those folks
 over here and let's engage in some discussion and get some stuff done.

 Thanks,
 Greg


I personally only have interest in test, that's what I use on my projects.
But if don't care about the rest.

So, could an only 1.1 release of test work ?

-- 
Matthias Wessendorf

blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf


Re: Shale Test

2008-10-01 Thread Bernd Bohmann
Hello,

Matthias Wessendorf schrieb:
 I personally only have interest in test, that's what I use on my projects.
 But if don't care about the rest.

 So, could an only 1.1 release of test work ?


+1

https://issues.apache.org/struts/browse/SHALE-465
https://issues.apache.org/struts/browse/SHALE-466
https://issues.apache.org/struts/browse/SHALE-467
https://issues.apache.org/struts/browse/SHALE-468

I would like to use Shale Test for MyFaces Tobago, but all patches have
only been applied to trunk. Should I resend the patches for the 1.0 branch?

Regards

Bernd




Re: Shale Test

2008-10-01 Thread Gary VanMatre

 -- Original message --
From: Bernd Bohmann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Hello,
 
 Matthias Wessendorf schrieb:
  I personally only have interest in test, that's what I use on my projects.
  But if don't care about the rest.
 
  So, could an only 1.1 release of test work ?
 
 
 +1

I think we would need to vote on releasing just a 1.1 shale test library but I 
don't see any major issue there given the big fuss.   Matthias, are you 
volunteering?


 
 https://issues.apache.org/struts/browse/SHALE-465
 https://issues.apache.org/struts/browse/SHALE-466
 https://issues.apache.org/struts/browse/SHALE-467
 https://issues.apache.org/struts/browse/SHALE-468
 
 I would like to use Shale Test for MyFaces Tobago, but all patches have
 only been applied to trunk. Should I resend the patches for the 1.0 branch?
 

That's odd.  Maybe Matthias had some reason for only applying these to the 
snapshot branch.   



 Regards
 
 Bernd
 
 

Gary


Re: Shale Test

2008-10-01 Thread Kito Mann
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Greg Reddin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 6:22 PM, Kito Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  That's fine, but I don't really see _anyone_ driving releases :-). What's
  the problem with letting Shale Test move somewhere else?

 

  The problem, though, is that Shale Test is part of a project that has
  stagnated. So, even if Shale Test moves forward, it's difficult to get
  traction if the whole project is perceived as stale. Do you see what I'm
  saying?

 If there are so many people out there who want to help move Shale Test
 forward, then we would love for them to step up and start
 contributing. Look at it this way: I use Shale in at least one project
 at work, so I have a vested interest in it continuing to work. Now a
 whole bunch of people from Project Foo think Shale needs to move
 forward and that it can move forward better over at Project Foo.

 But I've never seen code from the folks at Project Foo. I don't know
 their attitudes or development styles. I don't know how they work with
 others. I don't know if they will release it under a license I am
 comfortable with. How can I agree in good faith to just hand over the
 management of Shale to Project Foo when I don't know these things?

 We are commissioned by the ASF to manage the Shale project. You could
 make a decent argument that we have not done a very good job of
 managing the project. But we cannot recommend to the ASF in good faith
 that the best direction for the project is to send it to somebody else
 who we don't know.

 So that brings us back to this: If people think Shale Test needs to
 move forward then I would cordially and sincerely invite them to come
 join the dev list and start submitting patches. Point me to the
 patches that have not been responded to. Point me to the questions and
 requests that are not being answered. When I see that I can begin to
 give credibility to your argument that Shale would be better managed
 elsewhere.

 Just so I am clear: the motive of this post is not to be dramatic or
 troll or anything like that. I want to see Shale move forward too. If
 the best thing is for it to move elsewhere, then I will be the first
 to vote for that. But I can't trust who I don't know. Send those folks
 over here and let's engage in some discussion and get some stuff done.


Ok. I'll certainly ping Stan and company. But I think my sentiment is valid
even if we just move it to MyFaces. That, to me, would make plenty of sense
because plenty of the MyFaces projects use it.



-- 
Kito D. Mann -- Author, JavaServer Faces in Action
http://twitter.com/kito99
http://www.virtua.com - JSF/Java EE consulting, training, and mentoring
http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info
+1 203-404-4848 x3

* Sign up for the JSF Central newsletter!
http://oi.vresp.com/?fid=ac048d0e17 *


Re: Shale Test

2008-10-01 Thread Gary VanMatre

 -- Original message --
From: Kito Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Greg Reddin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 6:22 PM, Kito Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
   That's fine, but I don't really see _anyone_ driving releases :-). What's
   the problem with letting Shale Test move somewhere else?
 
  
 
   The problem, though, is that Shale Test is part of a project that has
   stagnated. So, even if Shale Test moves forward, it's difficult to get
   traction if the whole project is perceived as stale. Do you see what I'm
   saying?
 
  If there are so many people out there who want to help move Shale Test
  forward, then we would love for them to step up and start
  contributing. Look at it this way: I use Shale in at least one project
  at work, so I have a vested interest in it continuing to work. Now a
  whole bunch of people from Project Foo think Shale needs to move
  forward and that it can move forward better over at Project Foo.
 
  But I've never seen code from the folks at Project Foo. I don't know
  their attitudes or development styles. I don't know how they work with
  others. I don't know if they will release it under a license I am
  comfortable with. How can I agree in good faith to just hand over the
  management of Shale to Project Foo when I don't know these things?
 
  We are commissioned by the ASF to manage the Shale project. You could
  make a decent argument that we have not done a very good job of
  managing the project. But we cannot recommend to the ASF in good faith
  that the best direction for the project is to send it to somebody else
  who we don't know.
 
  So that brings us back to this: If people think Shale Test needs to
  move forward then I would cordially and sincerely invite them to come
  join the dev list and start submitting patches. Point me to the
  patches that have not been responded to. Point me to the questions and
  requests that are not being answered. When I see that I can begin to
  give credibility to your argument that Shale would be better managed
  elsewhere.
 
  Just so I am clear: the motive of this post is not to be dramatic or
  troll or anything like that. I want to see Shale move forward too. If
  the best thing is for it to move elsewhere, then I will be the first
  to vote for that. But I can't trust who I don't know. Send those folks
  over here and let's engage in some discussion and get some stuff done.
 
 
 Ok. I'll certainly ping Stan and company. But I think my sentiment is valid
 even if we just move it to MyFaces. That, to me, would make plenty of sense
 because plenty of the MyFaces projects use it.
 

Well, we have several myfaces committers on the shale project.  I'm not 
convinced that moving the code there under different package names
 would make the bits work better.



   



 
 
 -- 
 Kito D. Mann -- Author, JavaServer Faces in Action
 http://twitter.com/kito99
 http://www.virtua.com - JSF/Java EE consulting, training, and mentoring
 http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info
 +1 203-404-4848 x3
 
 * Sign up for the JSF Central newsletter!
 http://oi.vresp.com/?fid=ac048d0e17 *



Re: Shale Test

2008-09-30 Thread Greg Reddin
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 6:22 PM, Kito Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 That's fine, but I don't really see _anyone_ driving releases :-). What's
 the problem with letting Shale Test move somewhere else?



 The problem, though, is that Shale Test is part of a project that has
 stagnated. So, even if Shale Test moves forward, it's difficult to get
 traction if the whole project is perceived as stale. Do you see what I'm
 saying?

If there are so many people out there who want to help move Shale Test
forward, then we would love for them to step up and start
contributing. Look at it this way: I use Shale in at least one project
at work, so I have a vested interest in it continuing to work. Now a
whole bunch of people from Project Foo think Shale needs to move
forward and that it can move forward better over at Project Foo.

But I've never seen code from the folks at Project Foo. I don't know
their attitudes or development styles. I don't know how they work with
others. I don't know if they will release it under a license I am
comfortable with. How can I agree in good faith to just hand over the
management of Shale to Project Foo when I don't know these things?

We are commissioned by the ASF to manage the Shale project. You could
make a decent argument that we have not done a very good job of
managing the project. But we cannot recommend to the ASF in good faith
that the best direction for the project is to send it to somebody else
who we don't know.

So that brings us back to this: If people think Shale Test needs to
move forward then I would cordially and sincerely invite them to come
join the dev list and start submitting patches. Point me to the
patches that have not been responded to. Point me to the questions and
requests that are not being answered. When I see that I can begin to
give credibility to your argument that Shale would be better managed
elsewhere.

Just so I am clear: the motive of this post is not to be dramatic or
troll or anything like that. I want to see Shale move forward too. If
the best thing is for it to move elsewhere, then I will be the first
to vote for that. But I can't trust who I don't know. Send those folks
over here and let's engage in some discussion and get some stuff done.

Thanks,
Greg


Re: Shale Test

2008-09-30 Thread Rahul Akolkar
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Greg Reddin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 6:22 PM, Kito Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 That's fine, but I don't really see _anyone_ driving releases :-). What's
 the problem with letting Shale Test move somewhere else?

 

 The problem, though, is that Shale Test is part of a project that has
 stagnated. So, even if Shale Test moves forward, it's difficult to get
 traction if the whole project is perceived as stale. Do you see what I'm
 saying?

 If there are so many people out there who want to help move Shale Test
 forward, then we would love for them to step up and start
 contributing.
snip/

+1 to this and the bits below (and thanks to Greg for his patience in
writing thoughtful responses :-).

-Rahul


 Look at it this way: I use Shale in at least one project
 at work, so I have a vested interest in it continuing to work. Now a
 whole bunch of people from Project Foo think Shale needs to move
 forward and that it can move forward better over at Project Foo.

 But I've never seen code from the folks at Project Foo. I don't know
 their attitudes or development styles. I don't know how they work with
 others. I don't know if they will release it under a license I am
 comfortable with. How can I agree in good faith to just hand over the
 management of Shale to Project Foo when I don't know these things?

 We are commissioned by the ASF to manage the Shale project. You could
 make a decent argument that we have not done a very good job of
 managing the project. But we cannot recommend to the ASF in good faith
 that the best direction for the project is to send it to somebody else
 who we don't know.

 So that brings us back to this: If people think Shale Test needs to
 move forward then I would cordially and sincerely invite them to come
 join the dev list and start submitting patches. Point me to the
 patches that have not been responded to. Point me to the questions and
 requests that are not being answered. When I see that I can begin to
 give credibility to your argument that Shale would be better managed
 elsewhere.

 Just so I am clear: the motive of this post is not to be dramatic or
 troll or anything like that. I want to see Shale move forward too. If
 the best thing is for it to move elsewhere, then I will be the first
 to vote for that. But I can't trust who I don't know. Send those folks
 over here and let's engage in some discussion and get some stuff done.

 Thanks,
 Greg



Re: Shale Test

2008-09-29 Thread Gary VanMatre

 -- Original message --
From: Kito Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 5:11 PM, Gary VanMatre [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
 
 
   -- Original message --
  From: Kito Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Hello everyone,
  
   At JSFOne we were discussing Shale Test, and again the idea of moving it
  out
   of Shale popped up. With so little activity in the Shale project, I'd
  like
   to bring up the issue of migrating it to MyFaces proper, or out of
  MyFaces
   all-together. Thoughts?
 
  Any contributions to the shale project are much appreciated.  What do you
  mean by out of MyFaces all-together?  Kito, do you have interest in
  supporting this library under the shale community?
 
 
 Well, there has been interest in supporting Shale Test inside of JSFUnit --
 that's what I meant by out of MyFaces all-together. Basically, I think the
 community could use and updated and and active version of Shale Test, and
 the Shale community doesn't seem to have the bandwidth (or interest) in
 making that happen. Given the fact that a lot of MyFaces projects use it, I
 could see how  MyFaces may be a better place for it, *if* people in that
 community have cycles for it. Otherwise, it may fare better somewhere else.
 
 I certainly have interest in working on Shale Test regardless of where it is
 (I have a nice little Spring integration class, for instance), but I don't
 have the bandwidth to personally push the project forward.
 

I see.  Thanks for taking the time to explain.  Shale welcomes anyone that is 
willing to contribute to the project in the way of documentation or code 
contributions.  

Since the Shale project is not indirectly sponsored by a commercial entity, 
we don’t necessary have another product driving the release.  I’m certain 
that Shale would be more than willing to work with the Jboss group within 
the shale community.


 
 
 
  Gary
 
   ~~~
   Kito D. Mann -- Author, JavaServer Faces in Action
   http://twitter.com/kito99
   http://www.virtua.com - JSF/Java EE consulting, training, and mentoring
   http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info
   +1 203-404-4848 x3
  
   * Sign up for the JSF Central newsletter!
   http://oi.vresp.com/?fid=ac048d0e17 *
 
 
 
 
 -- 
 ~~~
 Kito D. Mann -- Author, JavaServer Faces in Action
 http://twitter.com/kito99
 http://www.virtua.com - JSF/Java EE consulting, training, and mentoring
 http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info
 +1 203-404-4848 x3
 
 * Sign up for the JSF Central newsletter!
 http://oi.vresp.com/?fid=ac048d0e17 *



Re: Shale Test

2008-09-29 Thread Kito Mann
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 10:51 AM, Gary VanMatre [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:


  -- Original message --
 From: Kito Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 5:11 PM, Gary VanMatre [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
 
  
-- Original message --
   From: Kito Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello everyone,
   
At JSFOne we were discussing Shale Test, and again the idea of moving
 it
   out
of Shale popped up. With so little activity in the Shale project, I'd
   like
to bring up the issue of migrating it to MyFaces proper, or out of
   MyFaces
all-together. Thoughts?
  
   Any contributions to the shale project are much appreciated.  What do
 you
   mean by out of MyFaces all-together?  Kito, do you have interest in
   supporting this library under the shale community?
 
 
  Well, there has been interest in supporting Shale Test inside of JSFUnit
 --
  that's what I meant by out of MyFaces all-together. Basically, I think
 the
  community could use and updated and and active version of Shale Test, and
  the Shale community doesn't seem to have the bandwidth (or interest) in
  making that happen. Given the fact that a lot of MyFaces projects use it,
 I
  could see how  MyFaces may be a better place for it, *if* people in that
  community have cycles for it. Otherwise, it may fare better somewhere
 else.
 
  I certainly have interest in working on Shale Test regardless of where it
 is
  (I have a nice little Spring integration class, for instance), but I
 don't
  have the bandwidth to personally push the project forward.
 

 I see.  Thanks for taking the time to explain.  Shale welcomes anyone that
 is
 willing to contribute to the project in the way of documentation or code
 contributions.

 Since the Shale project is not indirectly sponsored by a commercial entity,
 we don't necessary have another product driving the release.


That's fine, but I don't really see _anyone_ driving releases :-). What's
the problem with letting Shale Test move somewhere else?


 I'm certain
 that Shale would be more than willing to work with the Jboss group within
 the shale community.


The problem, though, is that Shale Test is part of a project that has
stagnated. So, even if Shale Test moves forward, it's difficult to get
traction if the whole project is perceived as stale. Do you see what I'm
saying?





  
  
  
   Gary
  
~~~
Kito D. Mann -- Author, JavaServer Faces in Action
http://twitter.com/kito99
http://www.virtua.com - JSF/Java EE consulting, training, and
 mentoring
http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info
+1 203-404-4848 x3
   
* Sign up for the JSF Central newsletter!
http://oi.vresp.com/?fid=ac048d0e17 *
  
  
 
 
  --
  ~~~
  Kito D. Mann -- Author, JavaServer Faces in Action
  http://twitter.com/kito99
  http://www.virtua.com - JSF/Java EE consulting, training, and mentoring
  http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info
  +1 203-404-4848 x3
 
  * Sign up for the JSF Central newsletter!
  http://oi.vresp.com/?fid=ac048d0e17 *




-- 
~~~
Kito D. Mann -- Author, JavaServer Faces in Action
http://twitter.com/kito99
http://www.virtua.com - JSF/Java EE consulting, training, and mentoring
http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info
+1 203-404-4848 x3

* Sign up for the JSF Central newsletter!
http://oi.vresp.com/?fid=ac048d0e17 *


Re: Shale Test

2008-09-28 Thread Kito Mann
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 5:11 PM, Gary VanMatre [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:


  -- Original message --
 From: Kito Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Hello everyone,
 
  At JSFOne we were discussing Shale Test, and again the idea of moving it
 out
  of Shale popped up. With so little activity in the Shale project, I'd
 like
  to bring up the issue of migrating it to MyFaces proper, or out of
 MyFaces
  all-together. Thoughts?

 Any contributions to the shale project are much appreciated.  What do you
 mean by out of MyFaces all-together?  Kito, do you have interest in
 supporting this library under the shale community?


Well, there has been interest in supporting Shale Test inside of JSFUnit --
that's what I meant by out of MyFaces all-together. Basically, I think the
community could use and updated and and active version of Shale Test, and
the Shale community doesn't seem to have the bandwidth (or interest) in
making that happen. Given the fact that a lot of MyFaces projects use it, I
could see how  MyFaces may be a better place for it, *if* people in that
community have cycles for it. Otherwise, it may fare better somewhere else.

I certainly have interest in working on Shale Test regardless of where it is
(I have a nice little Spring integration class, for instance), but I don't
have the bandwidth to personally push the project forward.





 Gary

  ~~~
  Kito D. Mann -- Author, JavaServer Faces in Action
  http://twitter.com/kito99
  http://www.virtua.com - JSF/Java EE consulting, training, and mentoring
  http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info
  +1 203-404-4848 x3
 
  * Sign up for the JSF Central newsletter!
  http://oi.vresp.com/?fid=ac048d0e17 *




-- 
~~~
Kito D. Mann -- Author, JavaServer Faces in Action
http://twitter.com/kito99
http://www.virtua.com - JSF/Java EE consulting, training, and mentoring
http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info
+1 203-404-4848 x3

* Sign up for the JSF Central newsletter!
http://oi.vresp.com/?fid=ac048d0e17 *


Re: Shale Test

2008-09-25 Thread Gary VanMatre

 -- Original message --
From: Kito Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Hello everyone,
 
 At JSFOne we were discussing Shale Test, and again the idea of moving it out
 of Shale popped up. With so little activity in the Shale project, I'd like
 to bring up the issue of migrating it to MyFaces proper, or out of MyFaces
 all-together. Thoughts?

Any contributions to the shale project are much appreciated.  What do you mean 
by out of MyFaces all-together?  Kito, do you have interest in supporting 
this library under the shale community?


Gary

 ~~~
 Kito D. Mann -- Author, JavaServer Faces in Action
 http://twitter.com/kito99
 http://www.virtua.com - JSF/Java EE consulting, training, and mentoring
 http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info
 +1 203-404-4848 x3
 
 * Sign up for the JSF Central newsletter!
 http://oi.vresp.com/?fid=ac048d0e17 *



Shale Test

2008-09-24 Thread Kito Mann
Hello everyone,

At JSFOne we were discussing Shale Test, and again the idea of moving it out
of Shale popped up. With so little activity in the Shale project, I'd like
to bring up the issue of migrating it to MyFaces proper, or out of MyFaces
all-together. Thoughts?

~~~
Kito D. Mann -- Author, JavaServer Faces in Action
http://twitter.com/kito99
http://www.virtua.com - JSF/Java EE consulting, training, and mentoring
http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info
+1 203-404-4848 x3

* Sign up for the JSF Central newsletter!
http://oi.vresp.com/?fid=ac048d0e17 *


Re: Shale Test

2008-09-24 Thread Paul Spencer

My main reason for not advocating moving Shale Test into MyFaces is
because it is implementation agnostic.  1.1-SNAPSHOT is even able to
load the implementation's configuration files!. That said, their has not
been a release in an while and a supported Shale Test under MyFaces is
better then the current state.

Shale contains other components, including Shale Dialog which I use,
that need to be included in this discussion.

Paul Spencer

Kito Mann wrote:

Hello everyone,

At JSFOne we were discussing Shale Test, and again the idea of moving it out
of Shale popped up. With so little activity in the Shale project, I'd like
to bring up the issue of migrating it to MyFaces proper, or out of MyFaces
all-together. Thoughts?

~~~
Kito D. Mann -- Author, JavaServer Faces in Action
http://twitter.com/kito99
http://www.virtua.com - JSF/Java EE consulting, training, and mentoring
http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info
+1 203-404-4848 x3

* Sign up for the JSF Central newsletter!
http://oi.vresp.com/?fid=ac048d0e17 *






Re: Shale Test

2008-09-24 Thread Paul Spencer
My main reason for not advocating moving Shale Test into MyFaces is 
because it is implementation agnostic.  1.1-SNAPSHOT is even able to 
load the implementation's configuration files!. That said, their has not 
been a release in an while and a supported Shale Test under MyFaces is 
better then the current state.


Shale contains other components, including Shale Dialog which I use, 
that need to be included in this discussion.


Paul Spencer

Kito Mann wrote:

Hello everyone,

At JSFOne we were discussing Shale Test, and again the idea of moving it out
of Shale popped up. With so little activity in the Shale project, I'd like
to bring up the issue of migrating it to MyFaces proper, or out of MyFaces
all-together. Thoughts?

~~~
Kito D. Mann -- Author, JavaServer Faces in Action
http://twitter.com/kito99
http://www.virtua.com - JSF/Java EE consulting, training, and mentoring
http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info
+1 203-404-4848 x3

* Sign up for the JSF Central newsletter!
http://oi.vresp.com/?fid=ac048d0e17 *





Re: Shale Test

2008-09-24 Thread Paul Spencer

Greg Reddin wrote:

On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 2:53 PM, Kito Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Hello everyone,

At JSFOne we were discussing Shale Test, and again the idea of moving it out
of Shale popped up. With so little activity in the Shale project, I'd like
to bring up the issue of migrating it to MyFaces proper, or out of MyFaces
all-together. Thoughts?


First off, I should mention that Shale 1.0.5 is actually released.
It's available on the mirrors. The only reason it hasn't been
officially announced is that the website is in a state of disrepair.
I'm sorry I abandoned it, but i simply ran out of bandwidth. I need to
separate the 1.0.5 doc from the site itself so I can update the site
and then announce the release. Ironically, I feel the 1.0.5 release
could be GA quality if we could ever get that last little bit done.

Once that's complete, there's not much to do towards getting a 1.1
release out. So all that's to say that we are painfully close to
actually having something good, but we're just short on available
cycles.


This is good news :)


Greg



Paul Spencer


Re: Minor improvements for shale-test

2007-09-06 Thread Matthias Wessendorf
thx,

I'll take a look ASAP.

-Matthias

On 9/4/07, Bernd Bohmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Hello,

 I would like to replace the tobago mock objects with the shale-test
 artifact.

 The required patches for shale-test are included in the issues:

 https://issues.apache.org/struts/browse/SHALE-465
 https://issues.apache.org/struts/browse/SHALE-466
 https://issues.apache.org/struts/browse/SHALE-467
 https://issues.apache.org/struts/browse/SHALE-468

 Regards

 Bernd




-- 
Matthias Wessendorf

further stuff:
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org


Re: svn commit: r494333 - in /shale/framework/trunk: shale-apps/shale-test-dialog-basic/src/main/webapp/ shale-apps/shale-test-dialog-scxml/src/main/webapp/ shale-dialog/src/main/java/org/apache/shale

2007-01-09 Thread Rahul Akolkar

On 1/9/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Author: craigmcc
Date: Mon Jan  8 23:13:55 2007
New Revision: 494333

URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revrev=494333
Log:
[SHALE-389] Implement a dialogScope pseudo-variable that is equivalent
(in the current implementations) to dialog.data but could be specialized
later.  This slightly simplifies binding expressions in JSF views, but (more
importantly) hides an implementation detail and offers the opportunity for
more advanced functionality to be applied later, without having to modify
existing JSF views (or use of binding expressions programmatically in backing
beans).


snip/


Modified: 
shale/framework/trunk/shale-dialog/src/main/resources/META-INF/faces-config.xml
URL: 
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/shale/framework/trunk/shale-dialog/src/main/resources/META-INF/faces-config.xml?view=diffrev=494333r1=494332r2=494333
==
--- 
shale/framework/trunk/shale-dialog/src/main/resources/META-INF/faces-config.xml 
(original)
+++ 
shale/framework/trunk/shale-dialog/src/main/resources/META-INF/faces-config.xml 
Mon Jan  8 23:13:55 2007
@@ -30,6 +30,7 @@

 application
 
navigation-handlerorg.apache.shale.dialog.faces.DialogNavigationHandler/navigation-handler
+
variable-resolverorg.apache.shale.dialog.faces.DialogVariableResolver/variable-resolver
 /application


snap/

Please svn add+ci DialogVariableResolver.

-Rahul


Re: svn commit: r482418 - in /shale/framework/trunk: shale-apps/shale-test-dialog-basic/src/main/java/org/apache/shale/examples/test/dialog/basic/ shale-apps/shale-test-dialog-basic/src/main/webapp/WE

2006-12-04 Thread Craig McClanahan

On 12/4/06, Rahul Akolkar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



The events I associate with either ends of a lifecycle (in the
context of web apps) are init and destroy. Do you think the callback
names onInit and onDestroy would be better (though I see onInstall and
onRemove making sense in the HttpSessionBindingListener sense, but
maybe thats an impl thing)?



I can buy into that, and we've used the init/destroy paradigm everywhere
else we have provided  this kind of lifecycle support.  I'll go ahead and
change the names.

Craig


Re: svn commit: r466600 - in /shale/framework/trunk/shale-test/src: main/java/org/apache/shale/test/el/ main/java/org/apache/shale/test/mock/ test/java/org/apache/shale/test/el/ test/java/org/apache/s

2006-10-26 Thread Gary VanMatre
From: Craig McClanahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

 On 10/21/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
  
  Author: gvanmatre 
  Date: Sat Oct 21 15:46:02 2006 
  New Revision: 466600 
  
  URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revrev=466600 
  Log: 
  Added better mock value binding expression support for scoped attribute 
  names that contain dotted values. 
 
 
 Interesting approach. Shouldn't we do something simpler to the 
 1.1-compatible ValueBinding and MethodBinding implementations in shale-test? 
 

I ran into this limitation in a Clay test case.  I wanted to place an attribute 
in request scope using a dotted id.

#{requestScope['org.apache.shale.clay.xmlns']}

The mock implementation did not support the parsing.  So, I ended up using a 
simple key name rather than choosing to not implement a test case.  This seems 
like a commonly need feature even in JSF 1.1.  I hate having to choose and 
implementation based on limitations of testing so I added ten or so more lines 
of code.
 

 Craig

Gary 

Re: svn commit: r466600 - in /shale/framework/trunk/shale-test/src: main/java/org/apache/shale/test/el/ main/java/org/apache/shale/test/mock/ test/java/org/apache/shale/test/el/ test/java/org/apache/s

2006-10-23 Thread Craig McClanahan

On 10/21/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Author: gvanmatre
Date: Sat Oct 21 15:46:02 2006
New Revision: 466600

URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revrev=466600
Log:
Added better mock value binding expression support for scoped attribute
names that contain dotted values.



Interesting approach.  Shouldn't we do something simpler to the
1.1-compatible ValueBinding and MethodBinding implementations in shale-test?

Craig


Re: svn commit: r465366 - in /shale/framework/trunk/shale-apps: shale-test-tiger/src/main/java/org/apache/shale/examples/test/tiger/ shale-test-tiger/src/main/webapp/ shale-test-view/src/main/java/org

2006-10-20 Thread Rahul Akolkar

On 10/18/06, Craig McClanahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

On 10/18/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Author: rahul
 Date: Wed Oct 18 13:49:36 2006
 New Revision: 465366

 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revrev=465366
 Log:
 Adding props that should've been part of r465311 and r465318.


FWIW, finally figured out what was causing this ... my enable-auto-props
option had gotten commented out somewhere along the way, so my settings that
should have taken care of this were getting ignored.  Sorry for the extra
work.


snip/

No problem at all, glad you found the glitch.

-Rahul



Craig




Re: svn commit: r463684 - in /shale/framework/trunk: shale-application/src/main/java/org/apache/shale/application/faces/ shale-remoting/src/test/java/org/apache/shale/remoting/impl/ shale-test/src/mai

2006-10-13 Thread Rahul Akolkar

On 10/13/06, Wendy Smoak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

On 10/13/06, Craig McClanahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 One caution on the unused imports warnings ... Checkstyle does not
 consider a javadoc comment like [EMAIL PROTECTED] Foo} to be a use, but 
Javadoc
 cannot create a correct link unless you either import this class (if it is
 not in the same package), or make it fully qualified.  So, some of the
 unused imports are actually used :-).

Could that be why I'm getting this?

$ mvn site
...
[INFO] Building Shale Dialog Manager (SCXML Implementation)
[INFO]task-segment: [site]
...
[INFO] 
[ERROR] BUILD ERROR
[INFO] 
[INFO] Error during page generation

Embedded error: Error rendering Maven report: Exit code: 1 - javadoc: warning -
Error!
javadoc: warning - com.sun.tools.javac.code.Symbol$CompletionFailure: file javax
\servlet\jsp\el\FunctionMapper.class not found
com.sun.tools.javac.code.Symbol$CompletionFailure: file javax\servlet\jsp\el\Fun
ctionMapper.class not found


snip/

Is the error in the shale-dialog-scxml module (as it seems from the
above output)? If so, then this particular commit is unlikely to have
caused that problem (since there were no mods to that module in this
commit).

There might be something else there that needs looking at though.

-Rahul



--
Wendy



Re: svn commit: r463684 - in /shale/framework/trunk: shale-application/src/main/java/org/apache/shale/application/faces/ shale-remoting/src/test/java/org/apache/shale/remoting/impl/ shale-test/src/mai

2006-10-13 Thread Wendy Smoak

On 10/13/06, Rahul Akolkar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Is the error in the shale-dialog-scxml module (as it seems from the
above output)? If so, then this particular commit is unlikely to have
caused that problem (since there were no mods to that module in this
commit).

There might be something else there that needs looking at though.


Yes, it's happening in shale-dialog-scxml.  The site is building fine
for Craig, so it's probably just Maven being weird again.

Thanks,
--
Wendy


Re: JSF 1.2 Shale Test support

2006-10-04 Thread Craig McClanahan

On 10/4/06, Adam Winer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



I'm implementing JSF 1.2 support for Apache Trinidad, and one
significant roadblock is the lack of real JSF 1.2 support from Shale
Test.  I'm mostly working around this by subclassing MockFacesContext
to add getELContext() (the most important missing method), but
I'm wondering:
- Is real JSF 1.2 support planned?



Interesting timing ... I am running into the same issue trying to test Shale
itself against the 1.2 RI.

- Shouldn't the jsfri12 profile list jsf-api and jsf-impl as provided

   dependencies, since JSF 1.2 is part of EE5?



They are in the shale-apps parent POM for sample apps, but I forgot to deal
with shale-test.  I'll see what needs to be done there.  I hope I can
compile shale-test against a 1.2 API and have it still work against 1.1.

- Can Shale bump up to RI 1.2_02 instead of the RI 1.2_01 snapshot?


Will do.

I'm happy to contribute any of my workaround code back to Shale.


Let me take a crack at the idea described above ... if it's not going to
work, I'll probably come back and ask for the workaround temporarily.

Thanks,

Adam Winer
Apache Trinidad



Craig


Re: svn commit: r443256 - in /shale/framework/trunk: ./ shale-apps/ shale-clay/ shale-clay/src/test/java/org/apache/shale/clay/config/ shale-core/ shale-remoting/ shale-spring/ shale-test/ shale-tiger

2006-09-14 Thread Gary VanMatre
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

 Author: craigmcc 
 Date: Wed Sep 13 23:16:55 2006 
 New Revision: 443256 
 
 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revrev=443256 
 Log: 
 Implement a fairly massive refactoring of our Maven2 build dependencies, 
 and (along the way) address the issues raised by SHALE-258 (although 
 they are probably not completely covered yet). Highlights of the 
 changes: 
 
 * Dependencies to compile the Shale Framework libraries have been 
 adjusted to always use the MyFaces API jar (it should not matter 
 which implementation is used to compile against, because the signature 
 tests in the TCK will ensure method signature compatibility). 
 
 * Migrate as many dependency version numbers as possible into the 
 section of the shale-parent POM, along with 
 exclusions that avoid adding optional dependencies to the classpath. 
 
 * Move the profile stuff about choosing MyFaces or the JSF RI into the 
 shale-apps-parent POM, instead of shale-parent, since this now only 
 affects webapps. 
 
 * There is a wierd test failure on the shale-clay unit tests that I 
 could not figure out, so I commented out those test cases for now. 
 Gary, could you take a look at CommentTestCase? 
 

This test is building the component tree and rendering the output.  
The output is parsed and checked for an embed comment.
Since the myfaces-impl is not a dependency, the renderers are 
not being loaded and no markup generated.

I could create some mock renderers for this test.  That would be 
much easier than starting a wrestling match with maven.

Gary

Shale Test - Exceptions

2006-08-08 Thread Butash, Bob
Looking at Shale Test, specifically the AbstractJsfTestCase I noticed
that the method signatures of the JUnit setup  tearDown methods have
been altered so that they no longer can throw exceptions.

Just wondering if the throws Exception can be added back to these
methods so they stay true to JUnit.

Thanks,

Bob Butash





Re: shale-test build failure

2006-07-14 Thread Sean Schofield

There is no shale zone yet.  For now we can use either Struts or
MyFaces zone.  MyFaces zone might make sense b/c it also has its own
repo for newly released artifacts (before they make it to ibiblio?)

Should we make inquiries on the myfaces-dev list asking if its ok to
piggy back on the MyFaces zone for now?

Sean

On 7/13/06, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

fixed

btw. where is the continuum zone for shale ?

-Matt

On 7/13/06, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 wups ...

 did I the patch wrong ?

 lemme check

 On 7/13/06, Wendy Smoak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  I'm not able to compile shale-test:
 
  Compiling 36 source files to c:\svn\shale\shale-test\target\classes
  [INFO] 

  [ERROR] BUILD FAILURE
  [INFO] 

  [INFO] Compilation failure
 
  
c:\svn\shale\shale-test\src\main\java\org\apache\shale\test\mock\MockFacesContex
  t.java:[100,16] setCurrentInstance(javax.faces.context.FacesContext) in 
org.apac
  he.shale.test.mock.MockFacesContext cannot override 
setCurrentInstance(javax.fac
  es.context.FacesContext) in javax.faces.context.FacesContext; overridden 
method
  is static
 
  --
  Wendy
 


 --
 Matthias Wessendorf

 further stuff:
 blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
 mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com



--
Matthias Wessendorf

further stuff:
blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com



Re: shale-test build failure

2006-07-14 Thread Matthias Wessendorf

Yes,

I am +1 on using MyFaces zone. I'd like to volunteer to put Shale there.
MyFaces zone is used by Trinidad as well.

-Matthias

On 7/14/06, Sean Schofield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

There is no shale zone yet.  For now we can use either Struts or
MyFaces zone.  MyFaces zone might make sense b/c it also has its own
repo for newly released artifacts (before they make it to ibiblio?)

Should we make inquiries on the myfaces-dev list asking if its ok to
piggy back on the MyFaces zone for now?

Sean

On 7/13/06, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 fixed

 btw. where is the continuum zone for shale ?

 -Matt

 On 7/13/06, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  wups ...
 
  did I the patch wrong ?
 
  lemme check
 
  On 7/13/06, Wendy Smoak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   I'm not able to compile shale-test:
  
   Compiling 36 source files to c:\svn\shale\shale-test\target\classes
   [INFO] 

   [ERROR] BUILD FAILURE
   [INFO] 

   [INFO] Compilation failure
  
   
c:\svn\shale\shale-test\src\main\java\org\apache\shale\test\mock\MockFacesContex
   t.java:[100,16] setCurrentInstance(javax.faces.context.FacesContext) in 
org.apac
   he.shale.test.mock.MockFacesContext cannot override 
setCurrentInstance(javax.fac
   es.context.FacesContext) in javax.faces.context.FacesContext; overridden 
method
   is static
  
   --
   Wendy
  
 
 
  --
  Matthias Wessendorf
 
  further stuff:
  blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
  mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
 


 --
 Matthias Wessendorf

 further stuff:
 blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
 mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com





--
Matthias Wessendorf

further stuff:
blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com


Re: svn commit: r419798 - in /shale/trunk/shale-test: pom.xml src/main/java/org/apache/shale/test/jmock/ src/main/java/org/apache/shale/test/jmock/AbstractJsfTestCase.java

2006-07-07 Thread Sean Schofield

That reminds me that we have a wiki to start building ...

Sean

On 7/7/06, Wendy Smoak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

On 7/6/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Author: matzew
 Date: Thu Jul  6 21:29:59 2006
 New Revision: 419798

 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=419798view=rev
 Log:
 SHALE-210. Adding support for JMock to the shale test framework

 Added:
 shale/trunk/shale-test/src/main/java/org/apache/shale/test/jmock/
 
shale/trunk/shale-test/src/main/java/org/apache/shale/test/jmock/AbstractJsfTestCase.java

Please configure your Subversion client to add svn:eol-style and
svn:keywords properties to new files.

http://wiki.apache.org/struts/StrutsMaintenanceSvn

Thanks,
Wendy



Re: svn commit: r419798 - in /shale/trunk/shale-test: pom.xml src/main/java/org/apache/shale/test/jmock/ src/main/java/org/apache/shale/test/jmock/AbstractJsfTestCase.java

2006-07-07 Thread Wendy Smoak

On 7/7/06, Sean Schofield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


That reminds me that we have a wiki to start building ...


I was wondering last night if it will be possible to move files from
one wiki to another, or if we'll have to copy-paste-delete.  Does
anyone know?

--
Wendy