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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >> > >
