of course... if you do a replace via ant, will be working just as well ;)
regards,
MartinOn 8/4/05, Sean Schofield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What would we need XSLT or codegen for again?Don't we just need tochange the URI for the new TLD on the fly using Ant?seanOn 8/4/05, Martin Marinschek
I'll work on this Sunday or Monday. I'll be offline this weekend.
sean
On 8/5/05, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
of course... if you do a replace via ant, will be working just as well ;)
regards,
Martin
On 8/4/05, Sean Schofield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What
You know, of course, that the prefix you mention in the TLD is mostly
irrelevant, right? It's up to the page to declare what prefix it is
actually going to use. The one in the TLD is merely a recommended
default.
Yes I know this. But its nice for the recommended defaults to be meaningful.
Yes, this is a very good thing to do...
how do you want to do this? XSLT transformation?
regards,
MartinOn 8/4/05, Sean Schofield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You know, of course, that the prefix you mention in the TLD is mostly irrelevant, right?It's up to the page to declare what prefix it is
Codegen :) Why fight it?
On 8/4/05, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, this is a very good thing to do...
how do you want to do this? XSLT transformation?
regards,
Martin
On 8/4/05, Sean Schofield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You know, of course, that the prefix
right ;)
regards,
MartinOn 8/4/05, Mike Kienenberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Codegen :)Why fight it?On 8/4/05, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, this is a very good thing to do...how do you want to do this? XSLT transformation?
regards,Martin On 8/4/05, Sean Schofield [EMAIL
What would we need XSLT or codegen for again? Don't we just need to
change the URI for the new TLD on the fly using Ant?
sean
On 8/4/05, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
right ;)
regards,
Martin
On 8/4/05, Mike Kienenberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Codegen :) Why
+1
On 8/2/05, Sean Schofield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was thinking that also. +1
On 8/2/05, Bruno Aranda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now that we are adjusting names to tomahawk, should'nt also the
myfaces_ext.tld file change to tomahawk.tld?
Regards,
Bruno
--
Matthias
+1 for Matthias' suggestion as well
On 8/3/05, Bruno Aranda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1 to the 'also' :-) I think we should change to tomahawk wherever it
is needed...
Bruno
2005/8/3, Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
also
urihttp://myfaces.apache.org/extensions/uri
to
another (reluctant) +1
cause all users have to change their JSP-files with that, just changing the prefix doesn't do any harm.
regards,
MartinOn 8/3/05, Sean Schofield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1 for Matthias' suggestion as wellOn 8/3/05, Bruno Aranda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1 to the 'also'
Hadn't thought about that part ... that might cause a lot of
headaches, especially with users who don't realize its changed. I'm
changing my vote to 0 for Matthias' idea but still +1 for changing the
name as Bruno suggested.
On 8/3/05, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
another
We could of course just keep in the old tld file, as we have done once before...
regards,
MartinOn 8/3/05, Sean Schofield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hadn't thought about that part ... that might cause a lot ofheadaches, especially with users who don't realize its changed.I'mchanging my vote to 0
well we could provide the old an the new tld... ;)
like we did in the past (sf - a.o)
-Matthias
On 8/3/05, Martin Marinschek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
another (reluctant) +1
cause all users have to change their JSP-files with that, just changing the
prefix doesn't do any harm.
+1 also for renaming the uri - should be enough if it's mentioned in the release notes - let's not do things by halvesOn 8/3/05, Matthias Wessendorf
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:well we could provide the old an the new tld... ;)
like we did in the past (sf - a.o)-MatthiasOn 8/3/05, Martin Marinschek
How about two TLD files (like we had for SF): the original one will
have the extensions URI and have 'x'. The new one will have tomahawk
and 't'. Sound good?
On 8/3/05, Thomas Spiegl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1 also for renaming the uri - should be enough if it's mentioned in the
release
On 8/3/05, Sean Schofield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about two TLD files (like we had for SF): the original one will
have the extensions URI and have 'x'. The new one will have tomahawk
and 't'. Sound good?
You know, of course, that the prefix you mention in the TLD is mostly
irrelevant,
Now that we are adjusting names to tomahawk, should'nt also the
myfaces_ext.tld file change to tomahawk.tld?
Regards,
Bruno
I was thinking that also. +1
On 8/2/05, Bruno Aranda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now that we are adjusting names to tomahawk, should'nt also the
myfaces_ext.tld file change to tomahawk.tld?
Regards,
Bruno
18 matches
Mail list logo
