Sorry, too late, Martin... :-( On 10/19/07, Martin Marinschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 >
-- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
