Hi,
why should a jsf1.1 extension library require java1.4 support?
tobago requires java1.5.
it is totally fine running jsf 1.1 on a java 1.6 environment.
I don't know the details of jsf 1.2 spec, but it seems to me that the
api for javax.faces.convert.Converter is the same, so why must we
differ between 1.1 and 1.2 in the commons-converter? Same for
commons-validator. Also many util classes should be able to work in
jsf1.1 and jsf1.2 without changes.
Note: I'm speaking about the application-developer part of commons,
not of the component/library-developer part.
Regards,
Volker
2007/12/5, Scott O'Bryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Right, I totally agree. The point is that, currently, Tomahawk, Tobago,
> and Trinidad 1.1 are NOT currently dependent on commons. And
> introducing support for 1.1 in the commons now would mean that commons
> would have to support Java 1.4 and JSF 1.1 pretty much forever.
>
> My proposal is basically that we leave the current 1.1 compatible
> renderkits as they are, maybe allowing some common filters and
> converters depending on what people think is needed. The other commons
> could then be used as projects tackle 1.2 and the commons could be used
> to ease and unify that development effort.
>
> Scott
>
> Paul Spencer wrote:
> > Scott,
> > My concern is when components, like Tomahawk, become dependent on JSF
> > Commons, then they will inherit the dependencies of JSF Commons. If a
> > component in JSF Commons is not intended to be used with JSF 1.1, or
> > none of JSF 1.1 components, like Tomahawk, require the commons
> > component, then I have no objection for a non-JSF 1.1. compliant
> > dependency.
> >
> > Paul Spencer
> >
> > Scott O'Bryan wrote:
> >> Cool, I was hoping we had one. :) Paul, you mind if I ask you some
> >> questions about this?
> >>
> >> I can totally understand the want/need for the converters and
> >> validators to be ported to 1.1 (and thus need 1.4 support), but what
> >> about the utilities? Currently Trinidad, Tomahawk, and Tobago
> >> support JDK 1.1 and therefore their adoption of the common utilities
> >> would be slow if not non-existant. I know that the logic I'm trying
> >> to introduce, although it could be used in JSF 1.1 environments,
> >> really becomes most useful when dealing with JSF 1.2 and the portlet
> >> bridge. I also wouldn't think that things like unified multi-part
> >> form processing would be likely to make it into current 1.1
> >> renderkits since it would require a lot of code to be rewritten and
> >> may not be backward compatible.
> >>
> >> Scott
> >>
> >> Paul Spencer wrote:
> >>> +1 on JSF 1.2 only
> >>> +1 on 1.1 support with JDK 1.5 required on both.
> >>> +1 on 1.1 w/ 1.4
> >>> I have projects I support on HP-UX that are currently running
> >>> JDK 1.4.
> >>>
> >>> Paul Spencer
> >>>
> >>> Andrew Robinson wrote:
> >>>> I would go for:
> >>>>
> >>>> +1 on JSF 1.2 only
> >>>>
> >>>> This is open source, so no one is required to use it and embracing 1.2
> >>>> is only going to help the development community move forward.
> >>>>
> >>>> +0.5 on 1.1 support with JDK 1.5 required on both.
> >>>>
> >>>> Just because the specification supports 1.4 does mean libraries have
> >>>> to. JDK 1.5 has been out plenty long enough for companies to adopt it.
> >>>> If they cannot adopt it, they should be willing to forgo new libraries
> >>>> and functionality
> >>>>
> >>>> -1 on 1.1 w/ 1.4
> >>>>
> >>>> This is too much work and will really hold nicer features back (I also
> >>>> would have no interest in developing and testing it personally).
> >>>>
> >>>> Just my $.02
> >>>>
> >>>> -Andrew
> >>>>
> >>>> On Nov 29, 2007 10:06 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>>> 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
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
