We can start with a 1.2 jsf commons api. But it should be allowed to
provide a 1.1 jsf commons later.

Bernd

Scott O'Bryan schrieb:
> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>                       
>>>>>>                 
>>>>>             
>>>>         
>>>     
>>
>>   
> 
> 

Reply via email to