+1 for Mr. M Dennis Byrne
>-----Original Message----- >From: Matthias Wessendorf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2006 04:05 PM >To: 'MyFaces Development' >Subject: Re: [JSF 1.2] question > >+1 on Martin. > >Eventuelly I'd like to join as an individual. but Martin should be the >ASF JSF guy. > >-Matthias > >On 6/8/06, Manfred Geiler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On 6/7/06, Martin Marinschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > Well, Jacob asked me if I'd like to join up. If I'd join, then as an >> > individual. >> >> Why not as the official ASF representative for JSF.next? >> Of course there should be an official vote, but from my POV there >> speaks nothing against you joining as a representative. And I have the >> feeling that others think similarly. ;-) >> >> >> > I have some very specific ideas about JSF 2.0, though. >> >> On more good reason for you becoming the official ASF/JSF.next guy ;-) >> >> Manfred >> >> >> > >> > regards, >> > >> > Martin >> > >> > >> > On 6/7/06, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > On 6/6/06, Matthias Wessendorf < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > > >> > > > > tracking system), but there hasn't been a formal roadmap for JSF.next >> > > > >> > > > so is JSF.next the project name for it? >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > No, "JSF.next" is shorthand for "whatever version follows JSF 1.2 . >> > Without a formal roadmap, there's no guarantee that the next version will >> > actually be 2.0 (although that seems most likely to me). But the real >> > roadmap could, for example, contemplate an intermediate 1.3 version with >> > more incremental changes before a next major version. >> > > >> > > As a historical note, the JSP version in J2EE 1.3 was numbered 1.2. The >> > original JSR for JCP to be included in J2EE 1.4 was proposed as 1.3, but >> > the >> > scope of the changes that the EG took on was so large that it became >> > obvious >> > that "JSP 2.0" was a much better identifier. So, to avoid confusion, >> > within >> > Sun we've started talking about "xxx.next" as being the next version of >> > "xxx", leaving the precise identiier to be determined later. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > that happens, it would be very much appropriate that Apache have a >> > > > > representative on the EG, and it would seem to make the most sense >> > that this >> > > > > rep be someone from the MyFaces community. >> > > > >> > > > Manfred is already there. I think Martin is interested too. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Cool. However, we'll want to figure out which particular person to >> > nominate as the official Apache representative ... in general, JCP expert >> > groups have only one representative from a particular organization (but >> > that >> > person can generally communicate to others within the organization to build >> > consensus, and then represent the organization's view back to the EG). >> > It's >> > also possible for additional folks to become EG members as individuals, at >> > the discretion of the spec lead(s). >> > > >> > > >> > > > -Matthias >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Craig >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > In the interim before the formal announcement, talk to Ed Burns and >> > Roger >> > > > > Kitain, who were the co-spec leads for 1.2 (and AFAIK that's not >> > changing >> > > > > for future versions, but I'm not as intimately connected with the >> > specs >> > > > > world in my Creator architect role -- instead, I'm a customer :-) >> > about the >> > > > > kinds of areas you would like to see a 2.0 spec cover. >> > > > > >> > > > > > -Matthias >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > Craig >> > > > > >> > > > > > [1] >> > > > > >> > https://javaserverfaces-spec-public.dev.java.net/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=176 >> > > > > > >> > > > > > On 6/6/06, Craig McClanahan < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On 6/6/06, Matthias Wessendorf < [EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: >> > > > > > > > CONVERTER_ID = "javax.faces.DoubleTime " >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Looks like a spec bug due to a cut-n-paste error in the RI's API >> > > > > classes. >> > > > > > > If so, the correct thing to do would be to report feedback via >> > > > > > > the >> > > > > website >> > > > > > > on the spec cover ( >> > > > > > > https://javaserverfaces-spec-public.dev.java.net >> > ) so >> > > > > that >> > > > > > > it can get addressed as an errata, or included in a maintenance >> > version >> > > > > of >> > > > > > > the 1.2 spec. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Until then, though, I'd recommend you keep it ... this is the >> > > > > > > kind >> > of >> > > > > > > mechanical detail that the API signature tests in the TCK will >> > likely >> > > > > flag >> > > > > > > if it's missing. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Craig >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > On 6/6/06, Matthias Wessendorf < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > > > > > > > > Any reason for keeping [1] ? >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > -Matthias >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > [1] http://tinyurl.com/gjdxe >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > On 6/5/06, Matthias Wessendorf < [EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: >> > > > > > > > > > Ah, >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > thanks. Some are some issues also the reasons, why >> > UIComponent is >> > > > > not >> > > > > > > > > > an interface? >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > -Matthias >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > On 6/5/06, Adam Winer < [EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: >> > > > > > > > > > > Backwards compatibility - at least of a sort; you won't >> > get >> > > > > > > > > > > AbstractMethodErrors when using 1.1-compiled subclasses. >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > -- Adam >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > On 6/5/06, Matthias Wessendorf < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > does anybody know why the methods added to ViewHandler >> > or >> > > > > > > > > > > > ExternalContext in 1.2 are not abstract, like their >> > *old* JSF >> > > > > 1.1 >> > > > > > > > > > > > counterparts ? >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > -Matthias >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > -- >> > > > > > > > > > > > Matthias Wessendorf >> > > > > > > > > > > > Aechterhoek 18 >> > > > > > > > > > > > 48282 Emsdetten >> > > > > > > > > > > > blog: >> > http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf >> > > > > > > > > > > > mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > -- >> > > > > > > > > > Matthias Wessendorf >> > > > > > > > > > Aechterhoek 18 >> > > > > > > > > > 48282 Emsdetten >> > > > > > > > > > blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf >> > > > > > > > > > mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > -- >> > > > > > > > > Matthias Wessendorf >> > > > > > > > > Aechterhoek 18 >> > > > > > > > > 48282 Emsdetten >> > > > > > > > > blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf >> > > > > > > > > mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > -- >> > > > > > > > Matthias Wessendorf >> > > > > > > > Aechterhoek 18 >> > > > > > > > 48282 Emsdetten >> > > > > > > > blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf >> > > > > > > > mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > -- >> > > > > > Matthias Wessendorf >> > > > > > Aechterhoek 18 >> > > > > > 48282 Emsdetten >> > > > > > blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf >> > > > > > mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > -- >> > > > Matthias Wessendorf >> > > > Aechterhoek 18 >> > > > 48282 Emsdetten >> > > > blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf >> > > > mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> > > >-- >Matthias Wessendorf >Aechterhoek 18 >48282 Emsdetten >blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf >mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com >
