On Dec 5, 2007 6:53 PM, Mike Kienenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Many of us here have said that we don't see the need to support 1.1 > for this project.
yes. > Is there anyone here who feels that we do need to support 1.1 (and why)? Since some artifacts are generated (like the TAGs for the converters/validators), it is not a big deal to have a) the project independent from a specific API b) run the build with a param=faces11 (or faces12) to get the desired result. -M > > > On Dec 5, 2007 12:33 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Dec 5, 2007 6:18 PM, Andrew Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > here we go; > > > > my understanding is, that 1.1 is a must > > > > > > Why? Is it really necessary for us to create new projects on legacy > > > specifications? > > > > Well "a must" is a bit too much. I think I said that, having Tomahawk > > 1.1.x in mind... > > But... I really don't care that much on Tomahawk 1.1.x; > > > > A lot's of parts are pretty independent form the particular version. > > Those work out of the box for both versions... > > > > The other parts, that aren't (such as utils that uses invokeOnComp(), > > ExtCtx....) > > It is ok to skip faces 1.1 > > > > -Matthias > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > 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
