are the workaround that I am using.
Paul Spencer
Wendy Smoak wrote:
On 8/23/06, Paul Spencer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As a developer that is starting to use Shale via Maven, issue
SHALE-258[1] is very
frustrating and should be addressed before the release.
I think I know why it's happening, but I'm
=processPayment method=#{check.processPayment}
transition outcome=success target=paymentAccepted/
transition outcome=rejected target=paymentRejected/
/action
end name=paymentAccepted view=/paymentAccepted.jsp/
end name=paymentRejected view=/paymentRejected.jsp/
/dialog
Paul Spencer
Rahul,
This was not a how to do I do this question. It was in reference to
the current Dialog Manager design effort.
Paul Spencer
Rahul Akolkar wrote:
On 8/25/06, Craig McClanahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 8/25/06, Paul Spencer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
An advantage with the current
are the rules?
a. Will each module be versioned independently?
b. How will Shale be versioned?
Thoughts?
Craig
Paul Spencer
---
Version Alpha BetaStable
--- --- --- ---
1.0.21-nov-2006 *rejected*
1.0.2.1 10-nov-2006 20-nov-2006 1-dec-2006
1.0.31-dec-2006 10-dec-2006 20-dec-2006
1.0.41-jan-2007 15-jan-2007
1.0.5 14-jan-2007
Paul Spencer
Craig McClanahan wrote
The MyFaces team is looking to use the ConfigParser() which was added in
version 1.1.0. Is their an estimate on the release of 1.1.0?
Paul Spencer
I like A.
I would prefer version 2.0 for JSF 1.2 because it allows
more version flexibilty for the JSF 1.1. I am partial to a
major release.minor release.maintaince release model where their
is upward API compatibility within a major release, 1.1 to 1.2.
Paul Spencer
Rahul Akolkar wrote
I use the Testing framework. So does Tomahawk.
I suggest creating a release based on the latest snapshot for Shale
before it goes dormant or is moved to MyFaces. That way projects that
are using snapshots will have a release.
Paul Spencer
Mario Ivankovits wrote:
Hi!
I sent out an e
As I have posted on this list before, I am in favor of releasing Shale
in it's current state before moving any parts of it to MyFaces.
Paul Spencer
Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
Hi,
as discussed already (here/[EMAIL PROTECTED]) there will be a move of
Shale (or some parts of it),
into MyFaces
Gary VanMatre wrote:
From: Matthias Wessendorf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
myfaces is already pretty large, so if you feel, that Shale should
stay a TLP, I have no problems with that.
I just came back to this idea, b/c was discussed in the past,
nothing happened, and Shale is pretty ... quite, these
Congratulations.
Paul Spencer
Greg Reddin wrote:
In its meeting yesterday the Apache Board of Directors unanimously
approved a resolution naming Gary VanMatre the new chair of the Apache
Shale Project Management Committee. Please join us in congratulating
Gary for this new role.
In addition
Mario,
See this thread [1]
Paul Spencer
[1]http://shale.markmail.org/search/?q=%5Bdialog%5D%20Multple%20dialogs%20per%20page%3F
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My customer want two or more instance of the same dialogs on different
windows. The problem is that the windows are created by the same
Mario,
See this thread [1]
Paul Spencer
[1]http://shale.markmail.org/search/?q=%5Bdialog%5D%20Multple%20dialogs%20per%20page%3F
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My customer want two or more instance of the same dialogs on different
windows. The problem is that the windows are created by the same
that
notice.txt, manifest.mf and license.txt existed
The artifact where built using JDK 1.5.0_13. Should they be built using
1.4?
I used the staged artifacts for testing. In addition I have request the
Myfaces folks run this version of shale when testing Tomahawk.
Paul Spencer
Greg Reddin wrote
Great!
I have not been able to test the current 1.0.5 release. Assuming the
issues I brought up in the prior 1.0.5 have been resolved, I would +1
this release.
Paul Spencer
Greg Reddin wrote:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 10:12 AM, Gary VanMatre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1 Release
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
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
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
Matthias,
Where are you in the process?
Paul Spencer
Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
Hi,
are there outstanding patches ?
If so, please reply to this mail with the according jira #.
I will find some time for
a) review
b) applying them to Shale test.
After that, I will find some more time
a JSF 1.2 implementation and failing since 1.1 is used.
Ideas?
Paul Spencer
. 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
21 matches
Mail list logo
