yes, some APIs have changed; my point was just, that for "trivial" things (like the validators/converters), the API is same, the generated artifacts are *dependent* to the particular Faces version.
-M On Dec 5, 2007 5:34 PM, Scott O'Bryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've also noticed that things with the externalContext also do not work > properly because the ExternalContext api's have changed. I suspect > anything that relies on the new functionality in externalContext or any > of the other API's for that matter will have trouble porting back. > > Scott > > > Matthias Wessendorf wrote: > > On Dec 5, 2007 10:40 AM, Volker Weber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> why should a jsf1.1 extension library require java1.4 support? > >> > > > > +1 > > > >> tobago requires java1.5. > >> > > > > Trinidad is also requiring Java5. > > like in Tobago land, we have a retro-weaver profile in the pom. > > > >> it is totally fine running jsf 1.1 on a java 1.6 environment. > >> > >> I don't know the details of jsf 1.2 spec, but it seems to me that the > >> api for javax.faces.convert.Converter is the same, so why must we > >> differ between 1.1 and 1.2 in the commons-converter? Same for > >> > > > > API is same. > > > > the "impl" is little different; > > ConverterTag is deprecated; > > good folks would use ConverterELTag > > (same for validator) > > > >> commons-validator. Also many util classes should be able to work in > >> jsf1.1 and jsf1.2 without changes. > >> > > > > yes "common" helper method, will work > > if the are not using things like invokeOnComponet(), for instance > > > > -M > > > > > >> Note: I'm speaking about the application-developer part of commons, > >> not of the component/library-developer part. > >> > >> > >> Regards, > >> Volker > >> > >> > >> 2007/12/5, Scott O'Bryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> > >> > >>> Right, I totally agree. The point is that, currently, Tomahawk, Tobago, > >>> and Trinidad 1.1 are NOT currently dependent on commons. And > >>> introducing support for 1.1 in the commons now would mean that commons > >>> would have to support Java 1.4 and JSF 1.1 pretty much forever. > >>> > >>> My proposal is basically that we leave the current 1.1 compatible > >>> renderkits as they are, maybe allowing some common filters and > >>> converters depending on what people think is needed. The other commons > >>> could then be used as projects tackle 1.2 and the commons could be used > >>> to ease and unify that development effort. > >>> > >>> Scott > >>> > >>> Paul Spencer wrote: > >>> > >>>> Scott, > >>>> My concern is when components, like Tomahawk, become dependent on JSF > >>>> Commons, then they will inherit the dependencies of JSF Commons. If a > >>>> component in JSF Commons is not intended to be used with JSF 1.1, or > >>>> none of JSF 1.1 components, like Tomahawk, require the commons > >>>> component, then I have no objection for a non-JSF 1.1. compliant > >>>> dependency. > >>>> > >>>> Paul Spencer > >>>> > >>>> Scott O'Bryan wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Cool, I was hoping we had one. :) Paul, you mind if I ask you some > >>>>> questions about this? > >>>>> > >>>>> I can totally understand the want/need for the converters and > >>>>> validators to be ported to 1.1 (and thus need 1.4 support), but what > >>>>> about the utilities? Currently Trinidad, Tomahawk, and Tobago > >>>>> support JDK 1.1 and therefore their adoption of the common utilities > >>>>> would be slow if not non-existant. I know that the logic I'm trying > >>>>> to introduce, although it could be used in JSF 1.1 environments, > >>>>> really becomes most useful when dealing with JSF 1.2 and the portlet > >>>>> bridge. I also wouldn't think that things like unified multi-part > >>>>> form processing would be likely to make it into current 1.1 > >>>>> renderkits since it would require a lot of code to be rewritten and > >>>>> may not be backward compatible. > >>>>> > >>>>> Scott > >>>>> > >>>>> Paul Spencer wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> +1 on JSF 1.2 only > >>>>>> +1 on 1.1 support with JDK 1.5 required on both. > >>>>>> +1 on 1.1 w/ 1.4 > >>>>>> I have projects I support on HP-UX that are currently running > >>>>>> JDK 1.4. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Paul Spencer > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Andrew Robinson wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> I would go for: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> +1 on JSF 1.2 only > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> This is open source, so no one is required to use it and embracing 1.2 > >>>>>>> is only going to help the development community move forward. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> +0.5 on 1.1 support with JDK 1.5 required on both. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Just because the specification supports 1.4 does mean libraries have > >>>>>>> to. JDK 1.5 has been out plenty long enough for companies to adopt it. > >>>>>>> If they cannot adopt it, they should be willing to forgo new libraries > >>>>>>> and functionality > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> -1 on 1.1 w/ 1.4 > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> This is too much work and will really hold nicer features back (I also > >>>>>>> would have no interest in developing and testing it personally). > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Just my $.02 > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> -Andrew > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Nov 29, 2007 10:06 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Nov 29, 2007 5:57 PM, Scott O'Bryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Hey everyone, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I'm going to try to put together a proposal for some items it add > >>>>>>>>> to the > >>>>>>>>> jsf commons fairly soon for your purusal. First off, however, > >>>>>>>>> I'd like > >>>>>>>>> some technical information on this project as it may effect how the > >>>>>>>>> project is set up. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 1. Which version of JSF will be the minimum for this project? > >>>>>>>>> One of my > >>>>>>>>> proposals involves needing an ExternalContextWrapper and the > >>>>>>>>> version of > >>>>>>>>> JSF does make a difference. I, personally, would like to see > >>>>>>>>> this based > >>>>>>>>> off 1.2 but if we need a 1.1 Faces Commons then I would recommend > >>>>>>>>> both a > >>>>>>>>> 1.1 and a 1.2 branch. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> here we go; > >>>>>>>> my understanding is, that 1.1 is a must > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 2. What is the minimum JDK we are going to use for this project. My > >>>>>>>>> preference would be J2SE 5 for the build. I could even live with > >>>>>>>>> making > >>>>>>>>> sure that code can be compiled with J2SE 5 in 1.4 compatibility > >>>>>>>>> mode but > >>>>>>>>> I think we need to be able to support generics at the very > >>>>>>>>> least. Of > >>>>>>>>> course if we're basing the commons project off of JSF 1.2, J2SE5 > >>>>>>>>> is a > >>>>>>>>> no-brainer. :) > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> JSF 1.1 => java1.4 > >>>>>>>> JSF 1.2 => JDK5 > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>> 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
