Hi, yes pom as well.
and also files in: -META-INF/services/ -META-INF/ @myfaces: a bug .... On 8/17/07, Scott O'Bryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hey, it looks like I did the impl, just not the API. I'm fixing that now. > > That said, does the liscence need to be in the POM files? I didn't > notice a liscence in the MyFaces 1.2 POM files... I have no problems > putting it in, certainly, but we may want to make the 1.2 branch of > MyFaces compliant with this as well. > > Scott > > Matthias Wessendorf wrote: > > Hey Scott, > > > > did a quick look. > > POMs and API .java class have to contain the Apache 2.0 license as well. > > > > Greetings, > > Matthias > > > > PS: build runs .... :-) > > > > On 8/17/07, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
