there was no real tomahawk bridge. that stuff is part of myfaces 1.1 (the core impl)
the difference here is that 301 specifies a way, how a JSF 1.2 application should work inside a portal. for jsf 1.1 there was "just" a note like "JSF 1.1 should run in a portlet..." (very simplified statement) So, no not a replacement, "just" an IMPL of the java SPEC ;-) On 8/17/07, Alexander Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Does this bridge replace Tomahawk bridge? > > On Aug 17, 2007, at 10:39 AM, Scott O'Bryan wrote: > > > Sounds good to me. Should we open up a discussion though on > > "where" this should be committed so that we can hit the ground > > running once the paperwork is listed? > > > > Scott > > > > Matthias Wessendorf wrote: > >> On 8/17/07, Scott O'Bryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >>> Hey everyone. After tearing though the bureaucracy much slower > >>> then I > >>> would have liked, I uploaded the code to MYFACES-1664 for the > >>> JSR-301 > >>> Portlet Bridge. This code should comply with the latest public > >>> draft of > >>> the JSR-301 specification and, once we figure out where to put > >>> this and > >>> get it made available in svn, I'd like to see people get their > >>> hands on > >>> it and try it out. It is going to change some things (for the > >>> better I > >>> hope), but if there are any unresolvable issues with it, my hope > >>> is that > >>> we can get those concerns voiced so that we can incorporate them > >>> into > >>> the final draft. > >>> > >>> That said, what are our next steps? > >>> > >> > >> we have to wait with the commit, until that the paperworks (Schedule > >> B) is listed here: > >> http://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/index.html > >> > >> -M > >> > >> > >>> Scott > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > -- Matthias Wessendorf further stuff: blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
