Hello all, I like both ideas (two different trunks and moving maven-faces plugin to MyFaces).
Regards, ~ Simon On 8/27/07, Gary VanMatre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >From: "Adam Winer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > I think Gary means > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/maven/ > > ... along with the other myfaces maven plugins. > > > > Yeah, that's what I meant. > > > My main concerns about moving our plugins over to > > the myfaces/maven directory are: > > - The i18n and xrts plugins are somewhat Trinidad-specific > > - We (currently) need 1.2 branches of the faces and tagdoc plugins. > > > > What's the history behind the xrts strategy for creating resources? Was > that borrowed for UIX/Cabo? > > > > Though this suggests another task - we should see how much > > work it would be to make the 1.0.2 core run against the current > > "1.2" plugins - I think the 1.2 faces plugin still has a mode for > > generating 1.1 components/etc. This'd get us out of the game of > > releasing separate 1.0.x and 1.2.x plugins, which'd be a big > > improvement! > > > > I'm not familiar with the faces plugin but I noticed the code generation > is different between Trinidad and Myfaces 1.2. How does this magic work? > Are there templates or java source that generates the classes based on the > xml configs? > > > > -- Adam > > > > > > > > On 8/25/07, Matthias Wessendorf wrote: > > > Let me think about this, but I tried to move the JDEV plugin to maven > > > plugins, no luck so far.... > > > > > > > > > On 8/26/07, Gary VanMatre wrote: > > > > > > > > -------------- Original message ---------------------- > > > > From: "Adam Winer" > > > > > Today, our repository looks like: > > > > > trunk > > > > > trinidad > > > > > plugins > > > > > > > > > > branches > > > > > trinidad-xyz-branch > > > > > trinidad > > > > > plugins > > > > > etc.... > > > > > > > > > > tags > > > > > maven-plugin-parent-1... > > > > > trinidad-1... > > & gt; &g t; > > > > > > What's weird here is that we release and tag the plugins > independently > > > > > of the core, but we still maintain the trunk and branches with > these two > > > > > together. > > > > > > > > > > Going forward, I suspect we'll want the ability to do quick > releases > > > > > of the core without touching the plugins. (I'm tempted to do a > 1.0.3 > > > > > release in the near future.) But as long as our trunk repository > is > > > > > what it is, that doesn't seem that feasible. And I don't see any > reason > > > > > why we shouldn't be able to do a quick plugins release to resolve > > > > > any Myfaces Core issues without touching the rest of Trinidad. > > > > > > > > > > So: my proposal is that we should redo the repos to be: > > > > > > > > > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/a sf/myf aces/trinidad/core > > > > > trunk > > > > > branches > > > > > tags > > > > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/trinidad/plugins > > > > > trunk > > > > > branches > > > > > tags > > > > > > > > > > ... and let the two release independently. There still > > > > > would be cases (potentially many) where we have to > > > > > release plugins, then the core, in lockstep. This would > > > > > have been true for 1.0.1 and 1.0.2, for instance. But it'd > > > > > definitely better reflect our tagging strategy. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe the trinidad plugins should be move to myfaces/maven since JSF > 1.2 has > > a dependency? > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Adam > > > > > > > > Gary > > > > > & gt; > > > > > > > -- > > > Matthias Wessendorf > > > > > > further stuff: > > > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ > > > mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org > > > >
