thank you!
On 5/18/07, Manfred Geiler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi folks,
Like Paul Spencer I'm also still
+1
for
MyFaces 1.x.y --> JSF 1.1
MyFaces 2.x.y --> JSF 1.2
MyFaces 3.x.y --> JSF 2.0
MyFaces 4.x.y --> JSF whatever comes next
Here is my explanation for the "why":
This one is similar to Tomcat version numbering and I do not remember
anyone complaining about having a Tomcat 5.x that is an implementaion
of Servlet 2.4 and Tomcat 6.x being a Servlet 2.5 container.
If there will be a "release vs. spec table" on the MyFaces Homepage
(like the one on http://tomcat.apache.org/) nobody will ever be
confused.
The big advantage of having (only) the major number aligned to the
spec is the degree of freedom with minor (x) and fix (y) number. It is
a well known and successful pattern to have this major.minor.fix
version numbering scheme. With the 1.2.x versioning on the other hand,
how could we ever differentiate between a minor release (with new
features and maybe slightly changed API for non-spec stuff) and a bug
fix only release, if we may only count the last number up?!
Remember the Tomcat jump from 5.0.x to 5.5.x when they did a complete
rewriting of the core stuff? How could they ever have expressed that
in version numbering if they had stolidly aligned their tomcat version
to the servlet spec 2.4?
And do not forget:
There is not only the implementation. There are 3 component libs under
the MyFaces umbrella. And IMHO it is much more important to align all
the myfaces stuff (compatible to each other) within one major number
(2.x) than aligning all the stuff to the spec version. For the
component libs it is even more important to have that degree of
freedom for counting up a minor number whenever there is an API change
and let the minor number unchanged for a bug fix release.
MyFaces is getting more and more important. Also for tool vendors. So
there will be more and more people and stuff out there who/that relies
on our APIs. We should be oblivious to this responsibility.
Sorry, but this is my binding
-1 veto
on having 1.2.x for our next spec 1.2 implementation as long as the
only reason for having 1.2.x is a "cosmetic" reason only to help
people not being confused.
Perhaps I missed something. If so, please explain to me what is a
proper technical or organizational or consequential reason for having
1.2.x as version for our next major (sic!) release.
Thanks,
Manfred
On 5/18/07, Kito D. Mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> +1 for 1.2
>
> -1 for 2.0
>
>
>
> Using a "2.0" version is going to confuse people.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Kito D. Mann - Author, JavaServer Faces in Action
> http://www.JSFCentral.com - JavaServer Faces FAQ, news, and info
>
>
>
> * Sign up for the JSF Central newsletter!
> http://oi.vresp.com/?fid=ac048d0e17 *
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Grant Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 1:16 PM
> To: MyFaces Development
> Subject: Re: MyFaces 2.0.0 (was Re: Tomahawk 1.1.5 release plans?)
>
>
>
>
> +1 for 1.2
> -1 for 2.0
>
>
> On 5/18/07, Mathias Brökelmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> +1 for 1.2
>
> 2007/5/18, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >:
> > So,
> >
> > any interest in making this to 2.0.0 ?
> >
> > -Matthias
> >
> > On 2/23/07, Manfred Geiler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > ...
> > > 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
> >
>
>
> --
> Mathias
>
>
>
>
> --
> Grant Smith
--
http://www.irian.at
Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting,
Development and Courses in English and
German
Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
--
Matthias Wessendorf
http://tinyurl.com/fmywh
further stuff:
blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf
mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
