You can surely take portlet-bridge - I like Ponte better, however... regards,
Martin On 10/19/07, Manfred Geiler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Done. > Scott, could you please doublecheck the new project with name "PORTLETBRIDGE". > Hope you had not already assigned Components to issues because they > seem to be lost. > FYI: I also had to manually assign "1.0.0-SNAPSHOT" as "affected > version" to all issues, hope that is ok. > > --Manfred > > > On 10/19/07, Scott O'Bryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Well there you go. PortletBridge has my vote. > > > > Mike Kienenberger wrote: > > > PORTLETBRIDGE is shorter than > > > GERONIMODEVTOOLS, so I think we're good with that :-) > > > > > > > > > On 10/18/07, Michael Freedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >> PortletBridge would be great as long as we can use that many characters. > > >> > > >> If folks prefer a codename I offer "Ponte". > > >> > > >> Ponte means bridge in Italian. > > >> -Mike- > > >> > > >> Scott O'Bryan wrote: > > >> > > >>> 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 > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > http://www.irian.at > Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, > Development and Courses in English and > German > > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces > -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
