Hmmm taking the JavaDoc's markup directly from Mojarra is wrong, but recreating it with the same result is permitted right?
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 2:32 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 8:18 PM, Jan-Kees van Andel > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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... :) > > I haven't looked at a patch yes, but even taking "only" the javadoc is > not correct. > The javadoc comments is part of their code and licensed under the wrong > license. > > Or were you just using the "order" of the methods ? > > -M > > > > > 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 > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > Matthias Wessendorf > > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ > sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf > twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf >
