Yes, of course. Sorry for bringing total confusion into this thread! Although it might seem so, I declare that I did NOT yet drink any beer today. (Only a small glass of wine... ;-)
I am +1 for Paul's suggestion: JSF 1.1 -> MyFaces 1.x JSF 1.2 -> MyFaces 2.x and I am +1 for JSF 2.0 (or JSF6 or whatever) -> MyFaces 3.x --Manfred On 2/23/07, Martin Marinschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dennis was suggesting JSF 1.1 --> MyFaces 1.1 JSF 1.2 --> MyFaces 1.2 I'm against that - Manfred, your suggestion sounds good. @MyFaces-API: well, Trinidad regards all Trinidad-component classes as a Trinidad-API. We were once discussing on having something like that for MyFaces as well. For Trinidad, a renderer is not in the Trinidad-API, a component is regards, Martin On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, in reallife there should not be (better: must not be) such a > thing like a MyFaces-API that differs from the JSF-API, but: > Every JSF-Implementation is free to implement certain add-on features > or optimizations. These are the things you normally configure with > those web.xml config-params. So, what you actually mean when you say > MyFaces-API are those features, right? > I agree that we need the option to differ between such a feature > addition/remove (minor change) and a bug fix release. Therefore > +1 on Dennis' suggestion (JSF 1.1 -> MyFaces 1.x, JSF 1.2 -> MyFaces 2.x) > > --Manfred > > > > On 2/23/07, Martin Marinschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Dennis, > > > > the problem is that you don't have any leeway to change the > > MyFaces-API (read: not JSF API) incompatible to what it had been > > before. Well, given we finally reach the point at which we have a > > pretty stable API between bugfix-releases. > > > > regards, > > > > Martin > > > > On 2/23/07, Dennis Byrne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > JSF 1.1 -> MyFaces 1.x > > > > JSF 1.2 -> MyFaces 2.x > > > > > > I'd rather keep the release numbers in sync with the spec numbers. > > > > > > 1.1 -> 1.1.x, > > > 1.2 -> 1.2.x > > > > > > > Paul Spencer > > > > > > > > Matthias Wessendorf wrote: > > > > > we sould do the same for core > > > > > > > > > > next is 1.5.0 > > > > > > > > > > and JSF 1.2 stuff should be changed to 2.0.0 > > > > > > > > > > On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> 1.5.0 or 1.6.0. One is as good as the other IMO. > > > > >> You mean 1.6.0 is better because it does not "match" the 1.1.5 of > > > > >> current core? > > > > >> I think Martin suggested 1.5.0 because it would be in the style of > > > > >> Tomcat 5.0.x vs Tomcat 5.5.x, right? > > > > >> > > > > >> --Manfred > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> On 2/23/07, Paul Spencer < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > >> > If the version of Tomahawk is not tied to the version of MyFaces, > > > then > > > > >> > how about the NEXT version of Tomahawk be 1.6? > > > > >> > > > > > >> > This would allow Tomahawk, like Tobago, to be version independently > > > > >> of MyFaces. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Paul Spencer > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Martin Marinschek wrote: > > > > >> > > slightly too late, but 1.1.5 would have been my option as well. > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > other option: 1.5 - and let tomahawk and impl version numbers get > > > > >> out of > > > > >> > > sync. > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > regards, > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > Martin > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > >> Ok, thanks for your feedback. > > > > >> > >> Branch 1.1.5 created. > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> --Manfred > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> On 2/23/07, Wendy Smoak < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > >> > >> > On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > >> > >> > > The new tomahawk release number is a trade-off. > > > > >> > >> > > We must decide between > > > > >> > >> > > - releasing tomahawk 1.1.4 which is not compatible to core > > > > >> 1.1.4 and > > > > >> > >> > > therefore might confuse users > > > > >> > >> > > - skipping tomahawk 1.1.4, stay in sync with core and have a > > > > >> > >> tomahawk > > > > >> > >> > > 1.1.5 that is 100% compatible to the current core 1.1.5 > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > +1 for Tomahawk 1.1.5 this time around, which will be > > > > >> compatible with > > > > >> > >> > Core 1.1.5. > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > (There is plenty of information in the archives if anyone asks > > > > >> "what > > > > >> > >> > happened" to 1.1.4. As Paul points out, Tomcat skips version > > > > >> numbers > > > > >> > >> > in their public release series.) > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > -- > > > > >> > >> > Wendy > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Dennis Byrne > > > > > > -- > > > > http://www.irian.at > > > > Your JSF powerhouse - > > JSF Consulting, Development and > > Courses in English and German > > > > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces > > > -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
