Yeaa, lets give him fun ;-) +1 for Doc M
Mario > +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 >> >> > > >
