+1 Martin seems to like punishing himself :-)
On 6/8/06, Grant Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+1 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
