Either a codename or PortletBridge would make the most sense to me.
On 10/18/07, Michael Freedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Any chance we can keep it simple/straightforward -- the other Keys seem to > do this ... like: > Portlet Bridge > Bridge > Portlet > PltBridge > PBridge > > -Mike- > > > Manfred Geiler wrote: > Done. > > BTW, I remember a discussion about the Jira key "JSR301". Reason for > the discussion was that it's no ideal name, because there might be a > time after jsr 301... > Well, renaming a Jira key is not possible. > What I could do is create a knew Jira project and bulk move all issues. > But first we would have to find a proper key. > MFPB for MyFaces portlet bridge? > or JSFPB? > Other suggestions? > > --Manfred > > > On 10/18/07, Scott O'Bryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Sure Manfred. If you would. I can then go and assign the existing Jira > tickets in the appropriate categories. > > BTW, thanks sooo much for all your help in this... > > Scott > > Manfred Geiler wrote: > > > So, there would be 4 new Jira "components" for the bridge: > api > impl > documentation > testing > > right? > should I add them right now? > > --Manfred > > > On 10/18/07, Scott O'Bryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hey guys, assuming there are not objections from incubator, I'm doing > what I can to try to get the bridge project ready so we can hit the > ground running. I was wondering what you guys thought about adding a > couple of components to the jsr-301 jira project. > > First off, I would like to add impl and api components to this project. > As an R.I., the api for this project will be largely dictated by the > spec. Therefore bugs filed against the API should be handled with more > scrutiny then changes to impl need to be. > > Secondly, I would like to see a separate component for documentation as > I will expect there will be a lot added here. > > Third, it MIGHT be nice to add a "testing" component. I know that > testing tasks could be included in the api and impl components, but part > of the requirements for the testing suite for this project should be > able ensuring compliance with the TCK. As an R.I., I know I personally > would want to see these tests be as accurate as possible to ensure that > the R.I. correctly implements the JSR-301 specification. > > What do you guys think? > > Regards, > Scott > > > > > > > > >
