Thank :) Although give me 10 minutes or so to fix something stupid I did before doing a checkout.
Regards, ~ Simon On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 7:16 PM, Hazem Saleh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thank you Simon. I will join this soon. > > > On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 7:13 PM, Simon Lessard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > >> Hi Bruno, >> >> So far my planing was: >> >> sequential >> 1. Create all new API classes: done >> 2. Add all new methods to the API, with empty TODO: JSF 2.0 comment in >> their body when they aren't abstract: in progress and I already found some >> strange stuff that I might raise on the EG group discussions as for why >> Application.getResourceHandler isn't abstract while all other get handler >> methods are: in progress >> >> *** At that point, IMPL will no longer compile *** >> >> 3. Add the missing signature in IMPL with empty TODO: JSF 2.0 comment in >> their body >> >> *** Everything should compile but don't work at all *** >> >> parallel >> 4. Modify the build plugin to include jsf 2.0 changes >> 5. Implement the API changes >> 6. Implement the IMPL changes >> 7. Implement the JS library >> >> I would really like to use Facelets code when required, but we'll have to >> make sure it's alright with legal discuss first I think, I'm not well versed >> enough in this kind of very specific issues. >> >> It's a very high level roadmap, We should probably use much finer >> granularity for point 5 to 7, but I'm not there yet. >> >> >> Regards, >> >> ~ Simon >> >> >> On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 11:30 AM, Bruno Aranda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: >> >>> I am willing (as always) to contribute as much as my time permits to the >>> JSF 2.0 implementation. I tried to find in the list what is going to be the >>> big picture, the roadmap to have a JSF 2.0 implementation. Do we have >>> something like that? How are we going to integrate Facelets, for instance? >>> (good that is now under ASL!). What part are you developing at the moment? >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> Bruno >>> >>> 2008/8/28 Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> >>> On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 4:50 PM, Simon Lessard >>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 10:35 AM, Matthias Wessendorf < >>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>> > wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >> On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 4:24 PM, Simon Lessard >>>> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> >> > Hi Simon, >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 2:56 AM, Simon Kitching < >>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>> >> > wrote: >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> I see from the commit list that a new JSF2.0 branch has been >>>> created. >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> I don't remember seeing *any* kind of discussion or even >>>> announcement >>>> >> >> about this. While I am happy to see JSF2.0 work going on, this >>>> kind of >>>> >> >> approach does not seem to be at all in the "community" spirit. >>>> IMO, >>>> >> >> major >>>> >> >> events like this should be discussed beforehand. >>>> >> > >>>> >> > As mentioned by other people, there was a vote about this a while >>>> back . >>>> >> > Why >>>> >> > did I create it just now? Simply because my company agreed to >>>> provide >>>> >> > some >>>> >> > resource to help with the implementation and we were ready to get >>>> >> > started. >>>> >> >>>> >> One might ask here for a CCLA ;-) >>>> >> We did that for Oracle way back, and update once in a while all the >>>> >> contributors, >>>> >> that have signed the iCLA. >>>> > >>>> > Yeah, but Fujistu signed a CCLA already when I became commiter, so >>>> that's a >>>> > non issue as well. >>>> >>>> good. >>>> >>>> > >>>> >> >>>> >> > >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> One issue, for example, is that the core-1.2 stuff is currently >>>> >> >> half-way-converted from the trinidad plugins to the >>>> >> >> myfaces-builder-plugin. >>>> >> >> So now it is branched, any changes need to be applied in two >>>> places. >>>> >> > >>>> >> > To be honest, I find this irrelevant, it's a branch, not a trunk >>>> and >>>> >> > I'll >>>> >> > most likely do some branch merging when core 1.2.x get release and >>>> the >>>> >> > plugin might have to change a little to support jsfVersion 2.0. >>>> >> > >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> In addition, a large amount of code has just been committed by >>>> someone >>>> >> >> (slessard) who is not a particularly regular contributor to >>>> myfaces. >>>> >> > >>>> >> > I see even less relevance in that statement. >>>> >> > >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> Where did this code come from? Do we need a code grant for it? >>>> Note >>>> >> >> that >>>> >> >> when code is developed iteratively on the dev list then there is >>>> no >>>> >> >> need for >>>> >> >> a grant. But a sudden code dump is different, even when >>>> contributed by >>>> >> >> someone who has signed a CLA. >>>> >> > >>>> >> > The code was coded just yesterday by me and is not much at all, >>>> creating >>>> >> > missing classes for the JavaDoc change log is in no matter a large >>>> >> > amount in >>>> >> > term of complexity. Also since I was the only author of it (my >>>> teammates >>>> >> > will wait until I have added the signatures). There's absolutely no >>>> need >>>> >> > of >>>> >> > code grant either. >>>> >> >>>> >> I agree on the code grant, b/c of it is really pretty trivial to >>>> >> create those API classes/interfaces >>>> >> (based on the javadoc log, as I said before). >>>> >> @signatures: you mean the iCLA / CCLA, aren't you ? >>>> > >>>> > nah, I meant method signatures, it will be easier for my teammates to >>>> know >>>> > what they have to do once there's a nice // TODO: Convert to JSF 2.0 >>>> added >>>> > in every new method's body. >>>> > >>>> > As far as I understand the legal issues (might have to fallback to >>>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] though), they won't need a CLA until they become >>>> commiters. >>>> > I don't know if I should have the company add their names to the CCLA >>>> >>>> no. wrong >>>> cla == contributor license agreement. >>>> I usually ask for that after one or two patches. Never been an issue at >>>> all. >>>> We (from ORA) add those contributors to our CCLA, and fax the update to >>>> Sam Ruby (our ASF secretary). >>>> >>>> > however. Technically, we aren't bound contractualy by any intellectual >>>> > property transfer with my employer and we're developping outside >>>> normal >>>> > business hours so we aren't directly paid either for it so I don't >>>> know if >>>> > adding their name to the CCLA is even needed or not. >>>> >>>> that means, what you develop on your sparetime is yours... NO CCLA >>>> update >>>> required. Cool >>>> >>>> -Matthias >>>> >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > ~ Simon >>>> > >>>> >> >>>> >> > >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> And with 3 branches to now maintain, we need to discuss whether >>>> and >>>> >> >> when >>>> >> >> we phase out maintenance of the jsf-1.1 branch. Currently when >>>> users >>>> >> >> provide >>>> >> >> patches in jira, they almost always provide a patch against only >>>> one >>>> >> >> version >>>> >> >> and the committer ports it, which does increase the load on >>>> existing >>>> >> >> committers. When do we stop asking committers to do this when >>>> patching >>>> >> >> bugs? >>>> >> > >>>> >> > I can take care of the branch merging, this is how we handled the >>>> >> > trinidad >>>> >> > 1.2 branch at first, Adam would do the merging every now and then, >>>> so >>>> >> > I'm >>>> >> > not asking the committers to do some extra work. >>>> >> >>>> >> yup. not a big deal. Also I doubt that that many folks will work >>>> >> there, on the branch. >>>> >> If the branch needs some merging... fine as well, IMO. >>>> >> >>>> >> > >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> To repeat, I'm *happy* that jsf2.0 implementation is in progress, >>>> and >>>> >> >> appreciate people contributing time to write an ASF-2.0-licensed >>>> >> >> implementation. But it is a standard saying at Apache that >>>> "community >>>> >> >> is >>>> >> >> more important than code", and the "community" aspect here seems >>>> to >>>> >> >> have >>>> >> >> been rather neglected... >>>> >> > >>>> >> > I don't agree at all here. Although it wasn't announced on the dev >>>> list, >>>> >> > the >>>> >> > JIRA ticket created to attach patches was speciafically for the >>>> >> > community. >>>> >> >>>> >> and the branch creation was also discussed. >>>> >> >>>> >> > Code provided by Fujitsu employees will never go through me with >>>> direct >>>> >> > commit, it will all be added as patches, even extra tests and >>>> >> > documentation >>>> >> > as we want them and everyone else willing to help get the credit >>>> for it. >>>> >> >>>> >> we do the same. Folks provide patches and jira tickets to describe >>>> the >>>> >> problem. >>>> >> >>>> >> > Furthermore, I personally didn't announce it because the branch >>>> will be >>>> >> > very >>>> >> > instable for a week or two until we finish adding the missing >>>> signatures >>>> >> > (impl might not even always compile). >>>> >> >>>> >> dev@ is a developers community; so that would be fine :-) >>>> >> >>>> >> -Matthias >>>> >> >>>> >> > If community wasn't important in the process we would just have >>>> used a >>>> >> > private repository at Fujitsu, worked on it for some time with my >>>> team, >>>> >> > then >>>> >> > commit some very large amount of code (real large) that would have >>>> >> > needed a >>>> >> > code grant, prevented the people to see at what rythm things were >>>> >> > progressing and contributing. The only point I *could* give you >>>> here is >>>> >> > that >>>> >> > maybe I should have annouced the creation directly on the dev list >>>> and >>>> >> > point >>>> >> > on the JIRA ticket and SVN url rather than relying only on JIRA >>>> ticket >>>> >> > report that get forwarded on the dev list. >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > Regards, >>>> >> > >>>> >> > ~ Simon >>>> >> > >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> Regards, >>>> >> >> Simon >>>> >> >> >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> -- >>>> >> Matthias Wessendorf >>>> >> >>>> >> Need JSF and Web 2.0? >>>> >> http://code.google.com/p/facesgoodies >>>> >> >>>> >> further stuff: >>>> >> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ >>>> >> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf >>>> >> mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Matthias Wessendorf >>>> >>>> Need JSF and Web 2.0? >>>> http://code.google.com/p/facesgoodies >>>> >>>> further stuff: >>>> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ >>>> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf >>>> mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org >>>> >>> >>> >> > > > -- > Hazem Ahmed Saleh Ahmed > http://www.jroller.com/page/HazemBlog > > [Web 2.0] GMaps Integration with JSF + Apache Tomahawk + JBoss a4j : > http://code.google.com/p/gmaps4jsf/ >
