Want to restart the vote?
On Dec 5, 2007 3:52 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > All myfaces commons trunks -> 1.2 > > 1.1 branch that is only maintained by those willing to perform back ports > > wasn't that what I said w/ compromise? > use JSF 1.2 as default, and when sb. cares, let > him port it back on a branch or what not; > > -M > > > > > > -Andrew > > > > > > On Dec 5, 2007 3:43 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I think that is a good compromise; > > > by that we also can "filter" later on the interesting parts for 1.1 > > > (which can be done, by those, that actually care on 1.1) > > > > > > which is easier... since the most do care on 1.2 (since it is a NEWER api) > > > > > > -M > > > > > > > > > On Dec 5, 2007 11:39 PM, Bernd Bohmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > 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 >
