I agree. Let's do homework first. And for all "itchy" guys: Let's start a wiki page with the 1.2 roadmap as Sean suggested.
Manfred On 2/15/06, Sean Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm also not very "itchy" for JSF 1.2. I too will be looking at > facelets on my next JSF project or using the RI. I'd rather spend my > energies on a really solid component foundation. > > My suggestion is that we hold off on the JSF 1.2 stuff for a month or > so at least until we get a chance to release, fix the website, square > away JIRA and assimilate Tobago. Those tasks will require everybody's > attention and will ultimately impact the 1.2 effort (at least from an > infrastructure standpoint.) > > I also think we need a *very* well though out plan for how to proceed > with 1.2 so we don't confuse the hell out of everybody (including > ourselves.) I don't think its just as simple as making a branch. > Maybe we could start with a detailed roadmap of how the 1.2 effort > would work and who is willing to work on it. Something more then just > creating a branch and seeing what happens ... > > Sean > > On 2/15/06, Mike Kienenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Because this is an apache project, there's nothing stopping a set of > > the developers from working on JSF 1.2 if that's their "itch to > > scratch" (other than a PMC mandate). At least, that's my impression > > from watching the struts dev mailing list over the years. > > > > Personally, I'm -0 on working on a JSF 1.2 branch. I'm +1 on adding > > 1.2 features to the existing 1.1 branch so long as they're compatible, > > but I don't have the option/interest of doing Java 1.5 work at this > > time, and Java 1.5 is a requirement for JSF 1.2. > > > > <shameless plug> > > Besides, Facelets gives me almost all of the missing JSF 1.2 features > > at no extra cost while continuing to use MyFaces 1.1. > > </shameless plug> > > > > On 2/15/06, Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > -0 on making trunk a JSF1.2 project. > > > > > > There is a whole lot of work still to be done to stabilise the 1.1.x > > > series; the JIRA issues list alone shows that. I would prefer to see the > > > main emphasis be on getting a "finished" release of the 1.1 spec rather > > > than on having an incomplete 1.1 and an incomplete 1.2 concurrently. > > > That doesn't mean that work on 1.2 features can't happen; just I think > > > that trunk (which is the easiest and most obvious place to work) should > > > stay with 1.1.x until all the major JIRA issues are fixed. Patches for > > > the 1.1.x series can be applied to "trunk", then merged to the 1.2 > > > branch at leisure; this seems more sensible than having things the other > > > way around. > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Simon > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 2006-02-15 at 05:38 -0700, Bill Dudney wrote: > > > > +1 on branching 1.1.x and moving trunk to JSF 1.2 > > > > > > > > Bill Dudney > > > > MyFaces - myfaces.apache.org > > > > Wadi - incubator.apache.org/wadi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 2006, at 12:08 AM, John Fallows wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 2/14/06, Martin Marinschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Wo-ow! > > > > > > > > > > cool, that went fast! > > > > > > > > > > Now, I'm definitely for a JSF 1.2 branch, if we can go with > > > > > that. > > > > > > > > > > We'd probably want to branch the more stable 1.1.x codeline and let > > > > > trunk evolve to leverage the new 1.2 APIs. > > > > > > > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > > John Fallows. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regards > > > > > > > > > > Martin > > > > > > > > > > On 2/14/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > The commons-el code is poor IMHO. The one I donated to > > > > > Jasper was originally founded within the RI 1.1 donation and > > > > > benchmarked quite a bit faster at the time. > > > > > > > > > > > > The one re-written for the EL-API and donated to both Sun > > > > > and Apache is based on Java CC, and finely tuned for JSF's > > > > > serialization and stateful lifecycles around VariableMappers > > > > > and FunctionMappers. > > > > > > > > > > > > I may be biased, but I think it would be a waste of time > > > > > to try to modify the commmons-el solution for the EL-API. > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW, on the topic of JSF 1.2 and findComponent, we've > > > > > added invokeOnComponent to the spec, implemented much like > > > > > was discussed here on the dev list and has been implemented > > > > > and tested within the RI. I, personally, would like to see > > > > > MyFaces adopt this method early instead of providing a > > > > > partial solution with perspectives to users. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Jacob > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Wow!. I must have missed that email! Was it donated > > > > > to MyFaces? I > > > > > > > > > > > > > >I think it was sent, when you are on vacation ;-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > >-Matthias > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > http://www.irian.at > > > > > > > > > > Your JSF powerhouse - > > > > > JSF Consulting, Development and > > > > > Courses in English and German > > > > > > > > > > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > http://apress.com/book/bookDisplay.html?bID=10044 > > > > > Author: Pro JSF and Ajax: Building Rich Internet Components, Apress > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
