I've always been of Manfred's opinion - it would be better to decouple spec version numbers from implementation version numbers, so I'm...
+1 for MyFaces-Impl 2.0 if we don't do that, we force ourselves into an artifical corset in which we cannot move - we can only increment minor version numbers, and that means that almost no changes have been committed (users would expect only bug-fixes), whereas the implementation could grow in functionality significantly independent from the spec. MyFaces API can stay with a version number of 1.2, though regards, Martin On 5/21/07, Zubin Wadia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It is a discussion about the core - I am only trying to establish WHY there are two schools of thought on this - refer to Manfred's post to this thread on May 18th. Cheers, Z. On 5/21/07, Mike Kienenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I thought we were simply discussing MyFaces Core. > > Let me clarify my vote: > > +1 1.2 MyFaces Core for JSF 1.2. > -1 2.0 MyFaces Core for JSF 1.2. > > Don't care for Tomahawk/Trinidad/Tobago. These are no longer > tightly-coupled to a specific MyFaces core release, and should use > whatever versions make the most sense. This is already true for > "shared", Trinidad, and Tobago. It's going to happen anyway for > Tomahawk once Myfaces 1.2 becomes trunk since Myfaces 1.1 releases are > going to be few and far between once the majority of committers have > switched to 1.2. > > While there have been matching releases for Tomahawk and Core up to > this point, this has been due to the elimination of the previous > coupling between Core and Tomahawk (a process that was more involved > and took longer than anyone expected). > > For tomahawk, my "don't care" suggestion for versioning would be to > use the same version as "shared" as long as that makes sense. > > > On 5/21/07, Zubin Wadia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > There will always be an impedence mismatch here because MyFaces no longer > > represents the "Spec" but also various component projects. So I see > > Manfred/Matze's point. > > > > This is why I have always advocated letting the Component initiatives reign > > alone in terms of their version order, release frequency and alignment with > > MyFaces and/or the Sun RI. > > > > And to think that we have the same exposure as the Tomcat community is > > pushing it. We are nowhere near as big as them - yet. > > > > So while they can start naming their releases after varieties of Hibiscus > > flowers in the future - we can't. > > > > I'm still +1 on 1.2. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Zubin. > > > > > > On 5/21/07, Bruno Aranda < [EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > +1 for 1.2 > > > -1 for 2.0 > > > > > > I do agree that using 2.0 may cause confusion, as unlike what happens > > > with tomcat, there will be a future version 2.0 of the spec when > > > myfaces 2.0 is there already. People, unaware of the versioning > > > procedure of the myfaces project, will go and fetch this version > > > thinking that it is the implementation of jsf 2.0. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > Bruno > > > > > > On 21/05/07, Mike Kienenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > +1 for 1.2. > > > > -1 for 2.0. > > > > > > > > I see no advantage to using major version numbers which differ from > > > > the spec. I see the disadvantage of confusion. > > > > > > > > Also, Manfred, you can have a -1 vote on this issue, but not a veto. > > > > > > > > "Vetos only apply to code changes; they do not apply to procedural > > > > issues such as software releases." > > > > http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html > > > > > > > > See also > > > > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/200606.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
-- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
