Hi Gerhard: I used the JavaDocs that come with the spec (downloaded it from the JCP site). Since everyone uses the same spec, I thought using the official JavaDocs would be the correct way to do things. I haven't looked at Mojarra when coding the JavaDocs, but my guess is that the JavaDocs that come with the spec have been generated from Mojarra sources, making them... equal... :)
Regards, Jan-Kees 2008/12/2 Leonardo Uribe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Hi > > Just one minor comment (I didn't now it): public review for jsf 2.0 is now > available at: > > http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=314 > > regards > > Leonardo Uribe > > On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 1:20 PM, Gerhard Petracek > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> hello jan-kees, >> >> first of all: thank you for your contributions! >> >> i had a quick look at some of your patches. >> and i compared them with the snapshot version of mojarra + the javadoc [1] >> >> the patches i compared look similar to the current source code of the >> snapshot (method order, var names,...) and also some javadoc comments are >> the same (example for the javadoc: [2] and [3]). >> there are also classes with slight variations. >> >> anyway, we have to take care that we don't violate the licenses used by >> mojarra (cddl and gpl). >> >> regards, >> gerhard >> >> [1] >> https://javaserverfaces-spec-public.dev.java.net/nonav/snapshots/pr1/javadocs/index.html >> [2] >> https://javaserverfaces-spec-public.dev.java.net/nonav/snapshots/pr1/javadocs/javax/faces/render/RenderKitWrapper.html >> [3] >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12394962/RenderKitWrapper.patch >> >> >> >> 2008/12/2 Werner Punz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> >>> Hello same here I wanted to check in the patches on Wednesday which >>> currently is my JSF 2.0 day as well... >>> So we might be able to share the work. >>> Btw. Jan have you signed the CLI or CLA already? >>> Unfortunately we have to be a little bit nitpicky about having this >>> signed not to get into legal trouble ;-) >>> >>> Werner >>> >>> >>> Simon Lessard schrieb: >>>> >>>> Hi Jan-Kees, >>>> >>>> Yeah I saw the patches, thanks for that. I'll check them in/comment them >>>> on Wednesday evening which is my JSF 2.0 day. >>>> >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> ~ Simon >>>> >>>> On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 1:24 PM, Jan-Kees van Andel >>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: >>>> >>>> From my point of view, it's nice to do something back to the >>>> community, instead of only using MyFaces... >>>> >>>> I've been implementing some classes yesterday. Created a Jira ticket >>>> for all of them (sometimes grouped similar classes together). >>>> >>>> Please look at it and tell me if this is the right way to do things. >>>> I'm sure there are things to improve. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Jan-Kees >>>> >>>> @Matthias: Good to hear my help is appreciated. >>>> >>>> >>>> 2008/12/1 Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>: >>>> > On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 1:21 AM, Simon Lessard >>>> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> >>>> wrote: >>>> >> 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. >>>> > >>>> > it is great to see more and more active folks here! >>>> > >>>> > -Matthias >>>> > >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> Regards, >>>> >> >>>> >> ~ Simon >>>> >> >>>> >> On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 12:46 PM, Jan-Kees van Andel >>>> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[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] >>>> <mailto:[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] >>>> <mailto:[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] >>>> <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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 >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>>> >>> >> >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > -- >>>> > Matthias Wessendorf >>>> > >>>> > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ >>>> > sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf >>>> > twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf >>>> > >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> http://www.irian.at >> >> Your JSF powerhouse - >> JSF Consulting, Development and >> Courses in English and German >> >> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces > >
