looks good to me! regards,
Martin On 1/18/08, Scott O'Bryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hey everyone, > > I just got back from a Face 2 Face of the JSR-301 Expert Group (the group > defining the Java Standard for the bridge). As I've been saying for a bit, > there is going to be a different specification for each portlet/jsf version > out there. Initially there will be two specifications produced though this > JSR. The first is the Portlet 1.0 Bridge for JSF 1.2 and the second is the > Portlet 2.0 Bridge for JSF 1.2. Eventually we'll probably have a Portlet > 2.0 Bridge for JSF 2.0 etc. I'm going to find a way to make this very easy > to figure out on the bridge web-site, but I think what we'd like to do is > have a single web-site for the bridge while still being able to maintain the > various (independently versioned) codelines of the bridge. > > So I'm thinking of restructuring the base level of the portlet bridge source > tree and I wanted to get everyones take on the following: > > > portlet-bridge > master > trunk - master pom for all bridges and main site > tags > branches > jsf1.2 > portlet1.0 > trunk > api > impl > demo > tags > branches > portlet2.0 > trunk > api > impl > demo > tags > branches > > Then as future JSR specs are added, we could just add the appropriate > directory and update the master pom file. > > *A NOTE ON THE BRIDGE* - Even though there are different versions of the > spec, the bridges are written such that the bridge for Portlet 1.0 should > run on Portlet 2.0 but without some of the extra functionality/correctness > or speed. An application upgrading to the Portlet 2.0 version of the spec > should have to change very little, if at all. The reason that we thought > that having seperate code trees for these versions was preferable is that > once the code in these codelines has stabilized, hopefully there will be > very little need to change the implementation short of an update to the > specification. So although the initial release of the bridge with these two > specifications in place may well mean we have to apply patches in two > places, I doubt that cost would continue as the project progresses. > > Anyone NOT think this structure is a good one? I'd like to apply it Monday > unless there are any concerns/suggestions. > > Scott > -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
