I just wonder when the App-Server guys will start to select the JSF-implementation to be integrated into their JEE-5 release product...
Alexander > -----Original Message----- > From: Manfred Geiler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 10:56 PM > To: MyFaces Development > Subject: Re: JSF 1.2 now !?! > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
