Re: Shale test status
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
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
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
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
-- 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
-- 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
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
-- 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
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
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
-- 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 dont necessary have another product driving the release. Im 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
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
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
-- 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 *
Re: Shale Test
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
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
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: shale-test build failure
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
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
