Well it was mainly for the API's (not the other pieces). So are you
asking for us to have both a 1.1 and a 1.2 jsf commons api?
Scott
Bernd Bohmann wrote:
Ok,
I'm fine if we are starting with 1.2 only. We can look for 1.1
interesting parts later.
But I don't like a commons jsf 1.2 only vote.
Bernd
Scott O'Bryan schrieb:
Bernd,
I do. :) Common's multi-part form handling (file uploads) will need to
work in both a Portal and Servlet environment before something like
Trinidad will be able to use it. For this, I'm proposing that such a
handler use the Configurator sub-system. The configurator Subsystem
must override the ExternalContext which has changed a great deal between
1.1 and 1.2. Having done multi-part form handling in Trinidad for both
frameworks, I can tell you that a generic implementation of this is
quite a bit different in both branches (largely because of the
setRequest() and setResponse() methods in 1.2).
Currently, Tobago, Trinidad 1.1 and Tomohawk all support multi-part form
handing for servlets. I don't see any reason why we should change these
implementations.
Scott
Bernd Bohmann wrote:
-1
I don't see any reason why a commons fileupload should not support 1.1
Can someone define what commons API means?
Is this just a subproject of commons like commons validator or commons
converter?
Scott O'Bryan schrieb:
+1
Mario Ivankovits wrote:
+1
Lets make the myfaces commons JSF API an official vote so we can have
a fixed time frame on this decision
+1 [ ] -- make JSF 1.2 the minimum requirement for the new myfaces
commons project
+0 [ ] -- you don't mind supporting a 1.1 trunk in addition to a 1.2
trunk
-1 [ ] -- you feel that 1.1 should be required and why you feel that
it is needed
My vote: +1
-Andrew
