Hi, Yes you can, but make sure to create a JIRA ticket for every change. You'll find that most new classes and methods are already there though, but some new ones just popped with the public review version.
Regards, ~ Simon On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 12:46 PM, Jan-Kees van Andel < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > All right, in that case, shall I start implementing those new API classes? > > I'm sure there's little fun for you guys in implementing all those > interfaces/etc. ;-) > > /Jan-Kees > > > 2008/11/29 Simon Lessard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Hi Jan-Kees, > > > > MyFaces has its own version of the javax.faces.8 within myfaces-api.jar > > file. That file obviously has the same content as Mojarra's, but with > > different code and thus a different bug/peformance base. However I must > > admit that most difference reside within the -impl > > > > > > Regards, > > > > ~ Simon > > > > On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 6:38 PM, Jan-Kees van Andel > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> Hi all, > >> > >> It might be a stupid question, but where does the MyFaces javax.faces > >> codebase come from? Is it copied straight from Mojarra? Or does this > cause > >> licensing issues and must all files be created by hand, based on the > spec? > >> > >> A.t.m., many of the new classes, like the pdl.facelets package are > >> missing. > >> > >> If you guys want, I can start adding them to myfaces2 if it needs to be > >> done by hand. > >> > >> Regards, > >> Jan-Kees > >> > >> > >> > >> 2008/11/27 Simon Lessard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>> > >>> I don't think just dropping the code will be enough. There are some > >>> contract difference between Facelets and Facelets in JSF 2.0. Although > >>> they're mostly compatible, some interfaces were added (see pdl) and the > >>> createView contract was changed as well (forcing full tree population > that > >>> doesn't seem to be the case in Facelets code atm). > >>> > >>> Furthermore, imho it's quite healthy to fork the code as it's going to > >>> start an improvement "competition" between Mojarra's Facelets and our > >>> Facelets, much like what happened when MyFaces was first implemented, > much > >>> faster than RI at the time, forcing the latter to improve their own > code and > >>> so on. > >>> > >>> That being said, if the community feels like we should limit the amount > >>> of changes as much as possible (to include Facelets updates and bug > fixes > >>> every now and then for example), I could also abide to that. > >>> > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> > >>> ~ Simon > >>> > >>> > >>> On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 3:26 AM, Werner Punz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Kito Mann schrieb: > >>>>> > >>>>> Hey Simon, > >>>>> > >>>>> Just curious: are you guys implementing Facelets from scratch? > >>>>> > >>>> I have not had a look yet at the current codebase, but to my knowledge > >>>> facelets itself has been relizenced under ASF2 > >>>> I would suggest just for the sake of keeping the compatibility close > >>>> no reimplementation just drag the code over, dont change the packages > >>>> if possible so that we at least there have a shared codebase. > >>>> It just does not make sense to do a full reimplementation or > >>>> to fork the code, since there are no political issues between the RI > and > >>>> MyFaces, on the contrary we have an excellent relationship! > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Werner > >>>> > >>> > >> > > > > >
