:-) Yes, but I guess there might be some more impls out there, like one that comes with the container ;-)
So, yes only one that goes with 301 (like this one ;-) ) -M On 8/17/07, Scott O'Bryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Right. But for 1.2 and higher JSF implementations, you would not need > to use another bridge. This one should be the only one you'd need. > > Scott > > Matthias Wessendorf wrote: > > yeah, sort of. > > > > there are currently (mainly for JSF 1.1) tons of "JSF-Bridges" > > -Apache MyFaces Core (not Tomahawk ;-) ) > > -Apache Portals Bridges (they have that for old school struts as well) > > -Suns RI has a module for JSF-Portlet integration > > -,,, > > > > so, this one "fixes" that. > > It's a standard > > > > javax. .... and just an impl (that does what the papers want (or tries ;-) > > )) > > > > -M > > > > On 8/17/07, Alexander Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> Ok.. but with this bridge and the right version of myfaces you would > >> not need something like the tomahawk bridge any more... > >> > >> thanks a bunch! > >> > >> On Aug 17, 2007, at 10:54 AM, Matthias Wessendorf wrote: > >> > >> > >>> 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 > >>> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > -- Matthias Wessendorf further stuff: blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
