Hmm. +1 to PortletBridge. It's the closest we have to what the
subproject is likely to be named.
Scott
Mike Kienenberger wrote:
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
