On 6/8/06, Mario Ivankovits <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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
>>
>>
>
>
>
--
Grant Smith
