Ugh!! I still think the benefits you mentioned do not outweigh the benefit of not confusing our users :) You do make a valid point regarding compatibility, but I don't see why we can't stick with MyFaces 1.2.x and have all the component libs follow the same version numbers ? I guess I don't fully appreciate why the "minor" version number and the "fix" version number have to be separated:
MyFaces 1.2.0 --> Initial JSF 1.2 compliant release. MyFaces 1.2.1 --> Bugfix release MyFaces 1.2.2 --> Some Bugs Fixed, and Included New Technology that Promotes World Peace. We'll still have the "Compatibility Matrix" which states which component libs are compatible, etc... On 5/18/07, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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
-- Grant Smith
