On Nov 29, 2007 7:08 PM, Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I certainly would be interested in contributing to a tomahawk-1.2 line, but > not particularly interested in a tomahawk-1.1 line.
to be honest, I have no interest in tomahawk 1.1 In 1.2 a bit more... > > It is necessary to test stuff that is added/modified, but compiling then > testing against both versions of JSF will be painful. And writing components > that work with the broken JSF1.1/JSP combination can be painful. > > And it would be great to be able to use java1.5 features rather than be stuck > with ugly code just to be JSF1.1 compatible. yes, java5 would be great. > > When a new lib is being started, it does seem a good opportunity to make it > 1.2-only and leave the old cruft behind.. thanks, I really was hoping for a feedback like that. > > ---- Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb: > > > to make it clear. > > > > I am not saying, that JSF 1.1 API is the ONLY ONE. > > > > Because this is a new project, a JSF 1.2 ONLY *would* make sense... > > but... JSF 1.1 is still in use... > > > > Perhaps a second trunk for 1.1-based JSF is a good thing (tm) > > > > -Matthias > > > > On Nov 29, 2007 6:16 PM, Scott O'Bryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > If 1.1 is a must then I don't see any way around having 2 trunks. The > > > API's between the two are not the same and when dealing with things like > > > decorators (which JSF makes extensive use of), you need to implement > > > every method on a class and ONLY those methods. > > > > > > I know that for Trinidad, although 90% of our code base is the same > > > between JSF 1.1 and 1.2, approximately 10% is not. And that 10% is what > > > may well force us NOT to use the commons project for things like > > > Multi-part form handling. Plus, I would like to make some utilities > > > that would allow renderkits to have an easier time of working with a > > > JSR-301 portlet environment while allowing the portlet-bridge-api's and > > > impls to be optional at runtime. Something that could save a lot of > > > time for render kit developers. These will need to be 1.2 only. > > > > > > Scott > > > > > > > > > Matthias Wessendorf wrote: > > > > On Nov 29, 2007 5:57 PM, Scott O'Bryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > >> Hey everyone, > > > >> > > > >> I'm going to try to put together a proposal for some items it add to > > > >> the > > > >> jsf commons fairly soon for your purusal. First off, however, I'd like > > > >> some technical information on this project as it may effect how the > > > >> project is set up. > > > >> > > > >> 1. Which version of JSF will be the minimum for this project? One of > > > >> my > > > >> proposals involves needing an ExternalContextWrapper and the version of > > > >> JSF does make a difference. I, personally, would like to see this > > > >> based > > > >> off 1.2 but if we need a 1.1 Faces Commons then I would recommend both > > > >> a > > > >> 1.1 and a 1.2 branch. > > > >> > > > > > > > > here we go; > > > > my understanding is, that 1.1 is a must > > > > > > > > > > > >> 2. What is the minimum JDK we are going to use for this project. My > > > >> preference would be J2SE 5 for the build. I could even live with > > > >> making > > > >> sure that code can be compiled with J2SE 5 in 1.4 compatibility mode > > > >> but > > > >> I think we need to be able to support generics at the very least. Of > > > >> course if we're basing the commons project off of JSF 1.2, J2SE5 is a > > > >> no-brainer. :) > > > >> > > > > > > > > JSF 1.1 => java1.4 > > > > JSF 1.2 => JDK5 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Matthias Wessendorf > > > > further stuff: > > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ > > sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf > > mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org > > -- Matthias Wessendorf further stuff: blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
